Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
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 $3.0 billion for research on "science" (nearly all of DOE's Science budget). The smaller R&D in- vestment in the EQ business line relative to that in the Energy Resources and National Nuclear Security business lines suggests that decision makers in DOE and Congress do not view EQ R&D as a high priority. Another indication that EQ R&D is not a high priority is a comparison of the trend of DOE EQ R&D spending with the trends in R&D spending in DOE's other business lines (see Figure 5.1 ). Figure 5.1 shows that from FY 1999 to FY 2001, R&D spending increased significantly in every DOE business line except EQ, where it was reduced by more than 8 percent over this same time period. The small increase in fiscal year 2001 sug- gests that the declining EQ R&D funding trend that occurred from 1995 to 2000, during which funding was reduced by nearly 50 percent (DOE, 2000b), may have stabilized or even reversed slightly. Even so, Figure 5.1 shows that in fiscal year 2001 R&D funding by DOE's other business 93
94 A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D TABLE 5.1 R&D Funding of Selected Federal Agencies (fiscal year 2001, current appropriations) Total Budget R&D as % of Agency/Business Line ($ 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.
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).
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-
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.
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-
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-
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).
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.
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-
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
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'
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
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.
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.
