A Strategic Vision for Department of Energy Environmental Quality Research and Development (2001) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix C: Summary of Previous Reviews of DOE's Environmental Quality Research and Development Portfolio
Appendix C: Summary of Previous Reviews of DOE's Environmental Quality Research and Development Portfolio
Pages 124-142
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 124... ...
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 materiThree of the ten technology categories were addressed in a moderately adequate manner: 124
|
From page 125... ...
The panel considered the magnitude of the gaps for each technology category and how important filling those gaps is to meeting the EQ strategy and objectives. The panel combined these estimates of the significance of these gaps with the adequacy assessment to identify four priority areas for improving the portfolio: environmental restoration; manage high-level waste; deactivate and decommission; and long-term stewardship.
|
From page 126... ...
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 applied research include separations, robotics, characterization and sensors, and institutional controls related to stewardship.
|
From page 127... ...
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.
|
From page 130... ...
.— Q o Q ~ 3 ~ g UJ s C~ tr 130 a' ~n a' ~n s3 ~o u)
|
From page 132... ...
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)
|
From page 133... ...
Kearns and Helt of the SLC, and senior technical persons representing 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)
|
From page 134... ...
All participants in the review agreed that the adequacy analysis had been conducted over a relatively short timeframe. Nevertheless, the Committee found that the process used to develop the results had many positive elements, yielded a useful product that can be built upon in the future, and was generally adequate.
|
From page 135... ...
While the commitment of the participants to an EM corporate perspective dunng the analysis was evident and should be congratulated, the Committee noted that the vast majority of the participants are directly linked to DOE, so some could interpret the results 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.
|
From page 136... ...
We also agree that the area of Deactivation/Decommissioning supports the major EM objective of Remediating Sites and Facilities but has not yet received adequate attention from the portfolio. The Committee found that the revised framework for the R&D Portfolio developed by the participants dunng the adequacy analysis was a significant improvement over the original framework and should be adopted by DOE.
|
From page 137... ...
With respect to these two categories, however, 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.
|
From page 138... ...
These include the development of roadmaps, development of waste disposition maps, increased use of projectization, and R&D Portfolio planning and analysis. The Committee believes the supporting case for increased R&D investment needs to be made in terms of real payoff to the country.
|
From page 139... ...
"Finding 3: The funding distribution across the technology maturity 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.
|
From page 140... ...
In addition, DOE has not fully supported adequate funding from Congress for the EM Science Program and has seen funding for this program decline steadily. The current increase in the FY01 budget for OST proposed by Congress is heartening to the Committee.
|
From page 141... ...
The Committee very much appreciated the opportunity to conduct this review 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.
|
From page 142... ...
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]
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.