|
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 93
5
THE LEVEL OF INVESTMENT IN DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
In previous chapters the committee has identified the need for fo-
cused, vigorous, and sustained, research and development (R&D) activi-
ties to address the long-term problems faced by the Department of En-
ergy's (DOE's) Environmental Quality (EQ) business line. The committee
also has developed criteria to evaluate the adequacy of the EQ R&D
portfolio, described the principal elements of the portfolio, and described
how DOE could achieve and maintain a more effective, long-term R&D
portfolio. This chapter identifies and refines measures that could be
useful in determining an appropriate level of R&D investment.
EQ is DOE's second most expensive business line, accounting for
$6.7 billion of the $19.7 billion DOE budget for fiscal year 2001 (see Ta-
ble 5.1~. The annual investment in EQ R&D is the smallest of the four
business lines, however. For fiscal year 2001, funding for EQ R&D was
about $298 million (4 percent of DOE's EQ budget), versus about $1.3
billion for R&D on energy resources (52 percent of DOE's Energy Re-
sources budget), $3.4 billion for R&D on national security (49 percent of
DOE's National Nuclear Security budget), and $3.0 billion for research
on "science" (nearly all of DOE's Science budget). The smaller R&D in-
vestment in the EQ business line relative to that in the Energy Resources
and National Nuclear Security business lines suggests that decision
makers in DOE and Congress do not view EQ R&D as a high priority.
Another indication that EQ R&D is not a high priority is a comparison of
the trend of DOE EQ R&D spending with the trends in R&D spending in
DOE's other business lines (see Figure 5.1 ). Figure 5.1 shows that from
FY 1999 to FY 2001, R&D spending increased significantly in every DOE
business line except EQ, where it was reduced by more than 8 percent
over this same time period. The small increase in fiscal year 2001 sug-
gests that the declining EQ R&D funding trend that occurred from 1995
to 2000, during which funding was reduced by nearly 50 percent (DOE,
2000b), may have stabilized or even reversed slightly. Even so, Figure
5.1 shows that in fiscal year 2001 R&D funding by DOE's other business
93
OCR for page 94
94
A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D
TABLE 5.1 R&D Funding of Selected Federal Agencies (fiscal year 2001,
current appropriations)
Total Budget R&D as % of
Agency/Business Line ($ billion) R&D Budget Budget
Environmental Protection 7.8a $686 millions
Agency
Department of Defense 288a $41.8 billions 15
Department of Energy (to- 1 9.7b $8.0 billions 41
tal)
Science 3.2b $3.0 billions >90
National Nuclear Security 7.0b $3.4 billions 49
Energy Resources 2.5b $1.3 billions 52
Environmental Quality 6.7b $298 millions 4
Corporate Management, 0.3b
Other
Data Sources:
a AAAS, 2001 ~
b Department of Energy Office of Chief Financial Officer
(http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budgeV02budgeV3-pager.pdf)
c K. Chang, DOE (personal communication).
lines increased significantly more than in EQ. These data are an indica-
tion that decision makers in DOE, the Office of Management and Budget,
and Congress may not fully understand the magnitude and duration of
many of the challenges faced by the EQ business line and the potential
value of long-term R&D to address such challenges. The small amount
of EQ R&D investment also is consistent with a business line that is re-
quired to meet many important short-term milestones, including regula-
tory requirements and the goals of DOE's accelerated clean-up plan
(DOE, 1998~. The data also may reflect the perception that past R&D
investments have not resulted in many deployments of new technologies
(U.S. House of Representatives, 2000~.
Determining an appropriate level of R&D investment requires clarity
on three principles:
.
The level of investment depends on the scope of DOE's EQ
mission.
. The level of investment must take into account the balance
to be drawn between spending limited resources on R&D and other
possible applications of those resources in meeting other EQ goals
and commitments.
OCR for page 95
The Level of Investment in DOE EQ R&D
95
· There are no formulas or mechanistic ways that by them-
selves provide or justify a specific funding level recommendation.
Nonetheless, the committee discusses two techniques (benchmarking
and investment indicators) that DOE should use as guides in determining
an appropriate level of EQ R&D investment.
Each of these principles is discussed below.
DEFINING THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EQ MISSION
Broad based support for EQ R&D investment first requires a clear
and compelling presentation of, and commitment to, the goals and ob-
jectives of the EQ mission. As discussed in Chapter 2, there is currently
some lack of clarity and consistency in DOE's EQ goal and objectives,
and this deserves careful consideration and clarification. The similar and
o
u,
o
-
._
Q t,,
~~ 2
~ =
._ O
~ 1
od O
IN
4
3
[I _
EQ Science
National
Nuclear
Security
Business Line
IIII1 FY 99
·FYOO
_~1 1 ~FY01
Energy
Resources
FIGURE 5.1. DOE Business Line R&D Spending by Year (in billions of dollars).
Data for fiscal year 2001 (FY 01) are estimates based on appropriations. Data
from 1999 and 2000 for all business lines are from DOE's R&D Portfolio Over-
view (DOE, 2000i). Data from 2001 for the National Nuclear Security, Science,
and Energy Resources business lines are from MAS (2001~; 2001 data for EQ
are from K. Chang, DOE (personal communication).
OCR for page 96
96
A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D
overlapping but clearly differing descriptions of the EQ goal and objec-
tives over the past three years makes it difficult to both identify and de-
fend the appropriate levels of R&D investment.
To resolve the matter, the committee has recommended that DOE
develop strategic goals and objectives for its EQ business line that incor-
porate a more comprehensive, long-term view of DOE's EQ responsibili-
ties. If DOE accepts this recommendation, it will almost certainly need to
re-examine the level of EQ R&D investment. Once clear and enduring
goals and objectives are defined, methods such as those discussed later
in this chapter should be a base for analyzing whether the level of R&D
funding is appropriate for meeting DOE's EQ responsibilities. Of course,
funding alone cannot ensure that EQ R&D will be effective. Effective
portfolio management, such as that described in Chapter 4, is an impor-
tant first step in ensuring that DOE's EQ R&D investments are used ef-
fectively.
BALANCING R&D INVESTMENTS WITH OTHER IMPORTANT
EQ NEEDS
After clear and appropriate goals and objectives have been defined,
determining the level of R&D investment will require difficult tradeoffs
from DOE managers and others. There are many important short-term
issues that call for high-priority allocation of funds. In EM, often reinforc-
ing or driving these needs are milestones associated with existing com-
pliance agreements between DOE and state environmental regulatory
authorities, and concomitant expectations of the affected communities
and their representatives. Congressionally mandated milestones are
major drivers of much of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Man-
agement's (RW's) program activities. In such situations, allocating funds
to R&D can be seen as taking resources away from meeting short-term
requirements or compliance agreements to support activities that are, by
their very nature, longer term and more uncertain in their ultimate bene-
fits. It is incumbent upon DOE leadership to make clear to all EQ
stakeholders the value of a robust and sustained R&D portfolio in ad-
dressing the most challenging EQ problems.
DOE has made initial steps in recognizing this required balance
through the creation of the Environmental Management Science Pro-
gram (EMSP), the focus areas and crosscutting programs within EM's
Office of Science and Technology (OST), and R&D programs in RW and
the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE). However,
most of these EQ R&D programs have not been characterized by a his-
tory of "strong, stable funding for a portfolio of research investments that
is diverse in terms of funders, performers, time horizons, and motiva-
OCR for page 97
The Level of Investment in DOE EQ R&D
97
tions" that is needed for effective "capitalization" of R&D results
(COSEPUP, 1999a, p. 4~.
For example, decreases in funding for the EMSP program, together
with significant "mortgages" imposed on the program from previous
years' awards that were not fully funded (see discussion in NRC, 1997),
have significantly reduced the number of new grants that can be
awarded (see Table 5.2~. As a result, in every year since fiscal year
1998, the EMSP program has chosen to focus all of its new grants in two
(or fewer) technical areas (which change from year to year), rather than
offering new grants annually in all technical areas.4 Such discontinuities
in funding in specific technical areas from year to year, along with de-
creases in funding, is not an effective strategy for "expand~ing] the core
of 'committed cadre' of investigators who are knowledgeable about EM's
problems" (NRC, 1997, p. 4), one of the stated goals of the EMSP pro-
gram.
In addition, the funding levels of some EQ R&D programs have been
TABLE 5.2 Environmental Management Science Program Funding History
(Fiscal Year 1996 to 2000)
FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998
FY 1999 FY 2000
Total Budget 50.0 48.0 48.0 47.0 32.0
(in $ millions)
Funds avail- 45.9 21.0 10.0 10.3 5.4
able for new
starts (in $
millions)
Current year 0.0 23.3 34.4 31.8 22.6
funds commit-
ted by previous
awards ("mort-
gage", in $
millions)
Number of new 136 66 33 39
awards
Source: DOE, 2000m.
'In fiscal year 199S, EMSP issued two solicitations in the areas of decontamination
and decommissioning and high-level waste; in fiscal year 1999, EMSP issued a single so-
licitation for subsurface contamination and vadose zone issues; in fiscal year 2000, EMSP
issued no solicitations for new grants and awarded 31 renewals; and in fiscal year 2001,
EMSP issued two solicitations in the areas of deactivation and decommissioning and high-
level waste.
OCR for page 98
98
A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D
developed largely from the "bottom up" and have focused on short-term
needs identification (NRC, 1999a), and some have been characterized
by significant changes from year to year. For example, a recent NRC
committee found that the success of OST's Subsurface Contaminants
Focus Area (SOFA)
has been limited in part by large budget swings. In fiscal year
1998, SCFA's budget was reduced to a level that was insufficient
to support significant progress on the development of innovative
remediation technologies. The budget level was cut from a 1994
level of $82 million to a 1998 level of $15 million, which included
a $5 million congressional earmark, leaving an effective budget
of $10 million. This budget was inadequate to fund the types of
large-scale demonstrations needed to transition innovative re-
mediation technologies from the research and development
phase to full-scale application. It also was too small to allow
open bidding for project funding. The fiscal year 1999 budget of
$25 million, while representing a significant increase, will allow
for funding of only a limited number of projects. (NRC, 1 999b, p.
247)
The purpose of citing these cases is not to criticize DOE leadership,
as a decision to concentrate limited funding in a few high-priority areas to
establish critical research foci is a logical alternative to funding only a few
projects in all technical areas. Rather, these cases are provided as ex-
amples of some of the difficult tradeoffs that must be made when only
limited resources are available.
Given the reasonableness of priority on near-term performance, it is
likely that the lack of a well-documented, accepted approach for deter-
mining long-term R&D funding levels will lead to strong pressure on pro-
gram managers to defend and possibly reduce EQ R&D investments.
DETERMINING AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF R&D INVESTMENT
The committee was asked to provide guidance on how to determine
the level of future investments in EQ R&D. It has not been possible to
identify an analytic or quantitative approach to establish an appropriate
level of R&D funding for the EQ business line, because funding levels
are in the end a policy decision that involves multiple tradeoffs. However,
there are two general techniques that, together, could be used for this
purpose: (1) benchmarking against other mission-driven R&D efforts,
both nationally and internationally; and (2) applying a set of investment
indicators based closely on the adequacy criteria developed in Chapter
3. The committee provides an overview of these techniques in the sec-
OCR for page 99
The Level of Investment in DOE EQ R&D
99
tion that follows. The committee also illustrates by example how each of
these techniques could be applied to the EQ R&D portfolio. The com-
mittee was not asked to recommend an appropriate level of R&D invest-
ment or to recommend that the current level of investment be increased
or decreased; however, the committee strongly encourages DOE to con-
duct its own analyses of EQ R&D funding using these techniques.
Benchmarking Against Other Mission-Driven R&D Efforts
Benchmarking R&D investment levels with competitors and other
similar R&D programs is a standard method used in industry (NRC,
1999a; DOE, 2000j). Benchmarking also can be used to compare the
quality and impact of research (as well as the level of R&D investments)
in one country with research in other countries, as discussed in reports
from the National Academies' Committee on Science, Engineering, and
Public Policy (COSEPUP, 1993, 2000~. Its recent report, Experiments in
International Benchmarking of U.S. Research Fields (COSEPUP, 2000),
provides a detailed description of the methodology to be used in such
benchmarking exercises. There is a large volume of information de-
scribing and analyzing R&D funding in the federal government and in the
private sector. Although there are marked and understandable differ-
ences between DOE's EQ programs and other government and industry
R&D programs, benchmarking could provide one meaningful measure
for discerning a range of reasonable R&D investment levels for the EQ
business line.
The following sections discuss two types of benchmarking and applies
them to select EQ R&D funding data: (1 ) benchmarking total R&D fund-
ing and (2) benchmarking the balance of R&D funding by stage of R&D
maturity.
Benchmarking Total R&D Funding
An informative exercise is to compare total EQ R&D funding (both
the level of investment and recent funding trends) with that in the three
other DOE business lines. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the Na-
tional Nuclear Security and Energy Resources business lines both de-
vote approximately 50 percent of their funds to R&D (see Table 5.1~. The
Science business line, not surprisingly, devotes almost all of its funds to
research. Although the current EQ business line has a particular pro-
grammatic focus, the 4 percent dedicated to EQ R&D has been called
into question by many, including DOE in its department-wide summary of
the R&D portfolio effort, R&D Portfolio Overview, which states that"cur-
rent [EQ R&D] funding may not adequately support a long-term inte-
OCR for page 100
100
A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D
grated research program" (DOE, 2000i, p. 25~. The Strategic Laboratory
Council's adequacy analysis (DOE, 2000g) and a letter report from the
Environmental Management Advisory Board (DOE, 2000h) also have
concluded that the level of DOE's EQ R&D funding is inadequate (see
Appendix C). Two other groups, the Washington Advisory Group and a
National Research Council committee also came to a similar conclusion
about the level of funding for subsurface science research in the EQ
R&D portfolio (NRC, 2000c; WAG, 1999~.
Benchmarking of recent EQ R&D funding trends against funding
trends for DOE's other R&D portfolios also is informative because it can
help distinguish trends that are DOE-wide from those that are unique to
the EQ R&D portfolio. Figure 5.1 shows that EQ R&D funding has de-
clined significantly at the same time that R&D funding for DOE's other
business lines has increased. Figure 5.2 illustrates that this reduction is
not limited to EM (which dominates total EQ R&D funding data); EQ R&D
funding in both RW and NE also has declined significantly in recent
years. These data are a strong indication that EQ R&D funding de-
creases do not simply reflect department-wide (or national) budgetary
constraints. DOE, in its R&D Portfolio Oven/iew, noted the decline in EQ
R&D funding as follows: "The downward funding trend is incongruous
-
,,, 400
° 350
o 300
o 250
._
·r 200
a, 1 50
~ 100
IL 50
O
1
L
1
1
ret ret
EQ total RW NE EM
FY98
FY99
I~FYOO
FY01
FIGURE 5.2. EQ R&D Spending by Year (in millions of dollars). Data for fiscal
year (FY) 1998, 1999, 2000 are from DOE's Environmental Quality Research and
Development Portfolio (DOE, 2000b). Data for FY 2001 are from K. Chang, DOE
(personal communication).
OCR for page 101
The Level of Investment in DOE EQ R&D
101
with upward trends in life-cycle costs and programmatic risk levels asso-
ciated with current cleanup projects. Further advancements in science
and the use of new technologies will be required to meet current cost
projections, much less reduce life-cycle costs" (DOE, 2000i, p. 25~.
The R&D budgets from other mission agencies also provide a useful
comparison. Table 5.1 includes fiscal year 2001 R&D funding data for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of De-
fense (DOD) in comparison with DOE as a whole, and for DOE's four
programmatic R&D business lines. Again, the percentage of the DOE EQ
budget spent on R&D is significantly lower than that for other U.S. mis-
. .
slon agencies.
The National Science Board's report, Science and Engineering Indi-
cators 2000 (NSF, 2000) contains extensive data on allocations of R&D
funds by federal agencies and the private sector. These data also can
provide a context for EQ R&D funding decisions. For example, data on
R&D as a percentage of federal budget authority by function is summa-
rized in Table 5.3. These data show that the percentage of DOE's EQ
business line budget spent on R&D (4 percent) is significantly lower than
the average for the federal government as a whole in the area of natural
resources and environment (8.1 percent).
The Industrial Research Institute tracks data on R&D The Industrial
Research Institute tracks data on R&D intensity (defined as the ratio of
R&D funding to net sales) for different industrial sectors (Table 5.4~. Al-
though research intensity is not directly comparable with the percentage
of federal program budgets allocated to R&D, the Industrial Research
Institute data show that research intensity is highest in knowledge-
intensive industries such as software and pharmaceuticals, whereas re-
search intensity is lowest for such mature industries as petroleum and
construction. Given the unique and enduring nature of many of DOE's
TABLE 5.3 R&D as a Percentage of Federal Budget Authority by Func-
tion
R&D Spending as Percentage of
Budget Authority
General science
Space research and technology
National defense
Agriculture
Health
Natural resources and environment
Transportation
73.1
67.3
13.4
10.8
10.2
8.1
3.4
Source: NSF, 2000; Table 2-2, p. 2-12.
OCR for page 102
102
A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D
TABLE 5.4 Research and Development Intensitya Global Firms (1997)
Sector R&D Intensity
Software
Pharmaceuticals
Medical Instruments
Scientific Equipment
Electronics
Computers
Chemicals
Aerospace
Automobile
Telecommunications
Soaps
Heavy Industries
Building Materials
Food
Metal and Metal Products
Gas & Electricity
Tobacco
Forest and Paper Products
Engineering and Construction
Petroleum
13.67
12.04
9.67
6.40
6.30
5.96
4.76
4.55
4.19
3.62
3.55
2.48
2.04
1.34
1.16
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.73
0.66
aThe ratio of R&D funding to net sales.
Source: Bowonder and Yadav, 1999.
EQ problems (as discussed in Chapter 3), the committee believes that
the EQ business line has a fairly knowledge-intensive long-term mission.
This is another indication that the EQ R&D budget may be anomalously
low with respect to other federal R&D efforts.
Benchmarking the Balance of R&D Funding
In theory, benchmarking also can be used to compare the balance of
R&D investments in the EQ R&D portfolio with that of other agencies and
the private sector. As an example, the committee discusses one element
of R&D balance, the percentage of total R&D spending that supports ba-
sic research. The National Science Board's report, Science and Engi-
neering Indicators 2000, summarizes fiscal year 2000 funding levels for
basic research and applied R&D for different types of federal R&D (see
Table 5.5~. For natural resources and environment, for example, ap-
proximately 9 percent of R&D funding supported basic research. For en-
OCR for page 103
The Level of Investment in DOE EQ R&D
TABLE 5.5 Budget Authority for R&D by Function and Character of
Work: Anticipated Levels for Fiscal Year 2000 (millions of dollars)
103
Basic Re-
search as
Applied Re- a Percent-
Basic Re- search and age of
Budget Function search Development R&D Total R&D Total
Total 18,101 57,314 75,415 24.0
National Defense 1,152 36,559 37,710 1.7
Nondefense (to- 16,949 20,755 37,704 45.0
tal)
Health 8,590 7,234 15,824 54.3
Space Research 1,841 6,581 8,422 21.9
and Technol-
ogy
Energy 46 1,302 1,348 3.4
General Science 4,710 241 4,951 95.1
Natural Re- 175 1,769 1,944 9.0
sources and
Environment
Transportation 634 1,206 1,840 34.5
Agriculture 736 786 1,522 48.4
All other 218 1,636 1,853 1 1.8
Source: NSF, 2000, Table 2-3.
orgy, approximately 3 percent of R&D funding supported basic research.
The Industrial Research Institute tracks similar data for industry, and its
data show that in 2000, approximately 7 percent of industrial R&D fund-
ing supported basic research.
Data on the distribution of EQ R&D funding for EM in fiscal year
2000 by focus area, including EMSP funding directed at each focus area
(the only significant part of the EQ R&D portfolio with funding data bro-
ken down by stage of R&D) are summarized in Table 5.6. The committee
has used these data to calculate basic research spending as a percent-
age of total R&D investment for each of OST's five focus areas, with the
following results:
Transuranic and Mixed Waste 4°/O
Subsurface Contaminants 18%
Tanks 22%
Deactivation and Decommissioning 28%
Nuclear Materials 44%
These data show that, with the exception of the Transuranic and Mixed
Waste Focus Area, most of OST's focus areas invest a significant
OCR for page 104
104
A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D
69
._
-
. _
o
a)
In
>`
Q
._
LL
C,
lL
to
to
to
CD
._
IL
>`
O
o
Cat
Cal
a'
._
In
o
8
o
In
IL
So
CO —
LO ~
In
m ~
AS
by
>`
_ ~
Q `~
A Al
In
.0
~ ~ ,
.~ C) Q
O Q
by O
g
<:
a)
~ ~ O
L11 Q O
a)
._ a)
Q {l)
a)
a'
t-
C~ Cal
._ ~
~ a'
m ~
In
3 A,
0 ~
IL ~
0 0 cat cat
co ~ ~ ~ co
In_ ~ ~ 0 Cal
Cal ~ Lo
0 ~
0 ~ Cal 0 ~
O ~ LO CO CD
° ~ ° ~
Go
to
0 ~ $ Go
- CO Cal 0
0 Cal Cal Co
~ 0 ~ ~
to
0 ~ ~ 0 ~
~ ~ ~ 0 CO
Cal ~ ~
Cal
0 ~ 0 ~
0 CO o
LO _ ~ LO _
(g ~ ~ Cal
0 0 CO
0 ~ 0
~ ~ ~ CD
Cal
. _
0 a) 0
0 In 00 .U)
Go ~ Lo
.0
~ ~ 0
a) ~ en
X ._
O ~ In w
en ·t Go ° ~ on
en a) ~ ~ Go-
.o
>
a) As,
~ ~ O
1~ 1~ Z ~ C)
a)
2
UJ
In
,
._
._
w~
cat
a'
In
._
In ~
m a'
In
0
A Cat
~ 0
._ ,_
z5 ~
0
0 ~
~ a)
'o .o
~—Q
A) Q
_
111
O
~ '
_ ~
In
O
~ ~5
·o C5,
Z
i ~
a) a)
~ a)
O Cal
Cl'
OCR for page 105
The Level of Investment in DOE EQ R&D
105
fraction of their R&D resources in basic research. This probably reflects
the significant decrease in total EQ R&D spending over the past few
years (see Figure 5.1), coupled with recent congressional pressures to
fund basic research within the EMSP program. It should be noted that
these data are based on how OST program managers chose to catego-
rize their R&D funding into the 7 stages of R&D tracked by OST, and that
this categorization was done relatively quickly at the request of this
committee. The committee suspects that some R&D classified as basic
research could have been classified as applied research, which would
tend to lower the percentages given above. It also is important to recog-
nize that the data do not include relevant basic research funded by
DOE's Office of Science, which if incorporated would tend to increase
the percentages given above. Due to the significant uncertainties dis-
cussed above, the committee cautions the reader not to draw significant
conclusions from this comparison. However, the calculation illustrates
how DOE could assess the balance of its R&D investments (or at least
specific elements of balance) through benchmarking.
Conclusion: Benchmarking with other mission-driven federal R&D
efforts could provide perspective on whether the EQ R&D budget is
too high or too low. It could also help to explain and justify the level
of future budget requests to decision makers within DOE, the Office
of Management and Budget, and Congress and to other interested
parties.
Recommendation: DOE should benchmark the EQ R&D budget
against other mission-driven federal R&D programs. Such bench-
marking exercises should have participation or review by outside
experts. Proposed budgets should be presented in the context of
benchmarking, and significant deviations from the information
gained through benchmarking should be explained.
Such benchmarking should take into account that DOE has a sepa-
rate basic research program that includes some research activities that
are related to (though not directed to) DOE's EQ mission. It also is very
important that this analysis to be transparent and credible (COSEPUP,
1999a). Whereas no correct level of investment exists, having a review
by internal and external experts can help provide independent advice
and enhance credibility in justifying an R&D investment level.
Indicators of an Adequately Funded R&D Portfolio
In Chapter 3, the committee developed criteria to evaluate the ade-
quacy of the EQ R&D portfolio. These criteria were based on what the
OCR for page 106
106
A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D
committee considered essential elements of a successful, long-term EQ
R&D portfolio. And, although they were not framed in terms of R&D in-
vestment, they can be re-packaged slightly as investment indicators. The
level of EQ R&D investment should be sufficient for the EQ R&D portfolio
to:
· address all critical areas of science and technology that are re-
quired to address EQ goals and objectives;
· support the accomplishment of closely related DOE and national
. .
missions;
include R&D to develop technical alternatives in cases where (1)
existing techniques are expensive, inefficient, or pose high risks to health
or the environment; or (2) techniques under development have high
technical risk;
· produce results that could transform the understanding, need,
and ability to address currently intractable problems and lead to break-
through technologies;
· leverage R&D conducted by other DOE business lines, the pri-
vate sector, state and federal agencies, and other nations to address EQ
goals and objectives;
.
the field;
help narrow and bridge the gap between R&D and application in
· improve performance, reduce risks to human health and the en-
vironment, decrease cost, and advance schedules.
.
achieve an appropriate balance between addressing long-term
and short-term issues;
. involve a diversity of participants from academia, national labo-
ratories, other federal agencies, and the private sector, including stu-
dents, postdoctoral associates, and other early-career researchers;
include annual new starts, extensions of promising R&D, and pe-
. . . ... ..
rlOC IC new Initiatives.
Meeting such criteria is an important indication of an appropriately for-
mulated R&D portfolio. Although the level of R&D investment alone can-
not guarantee the achievement of these indicators, the level of funding
should not preclude their achievement.
Finding: It has not been possible to identify an analytic or quantita-
tive approach that is suitable for establishing an appropriate level
of R&D funding for the EQ R&D portfolio.
Conclusion: Investment indicators based on the functions of a suc-
cessful EQ R&D portfolio can provide useful guides for the appro-
priate funding level.
OCR for page 107
The Level of Investment in DOE EQ R&D
107
Recommendation: DOE should use investment indicators, together
with benchmarking techniques, to help determine the appropriate
level of EQ R&D investments.
These investment indicators should provide a useful guide to the ap-
propriate range of EQ R&D funding levels. As discussed in Chapter 3, it
is also particularly important that DOE's process for arriving at appropri-
ate level of R&D funding consider the contributions of EQ R&D to meet-
ing DOE's other missions (particularly, its National Nuclear Security and
Energy Resources missions), and should be based on a retrospective
examination of the results of past EQ R&D.
CONCLUSION
DOE's EQ R&D portfolio must be recognized as centrally important
to DOE's EQ and other missions and as an enduring responsibility of the
department. R&D success requires an adequate, stable, and predictable
level of funding. A well-designed, sufficiently funded, and well-
implemented EQ R&D portfolio is necessary, but not sufficient, to assure
that the potential value of R&D in addressing DOE's EQ problems is
achieved. Many other features also must be present, including techni-
cally competent and trusted R&D program managers; effective relation-
ships among problem holders, R&D managers and researchers; good
communication of R&D results; and incentives for R&D results to be
used in solving problems.
An effective portfolio also requires close and trusting relationships
among the responsible DOE headquarters and local officials, contractors
at the sites, state regulatory officials, and stakeholders such as the af-
fected community. The nature of successful EQ R&D is to present op-
portunities to reduce risks to workers and the public, improve schedules,
decrease costs, and solve problems (see discussion in Chapter 3~. But it
also can require re-addressing existing agreements, changing sched-
ules, dealing with periods of uncertainty, and revisiting expectations. All
of these factors must be resolved for DOE's EQ R&D to achieve its
goals. An EQ R&D portfolio that is well conceived, effectively managed,
adequately and consistently funded, and championed by DOE leadership
is essential to success in achieving the DOE EQ mission.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
environmental quality
