Items in cart [1] Questions? Call 888-624-8373

PAPERBACK list:$21.00 Web:$18.90 add to cart Rights & Permissions Free PDF Access Free Resources Sign in to download PDF book and chapters PDF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Display this book on your site! Related Titles Risk and Decisions About Disposition of Transuranic and High-Level Radioactive Waste Decision Making in the U.S. Department of Energy's Environmental Management Office of Science and Technology Other Related Titles Technologies for Environmental Management: The Department of Energy's Office of Science and Technology (1999) Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources (CGER) Web Search Builder Use this book's key terms to search within this book, across our collection, or across the Web. Skim This Chapter Skim this chapter and use this chapter's key terms to search within this book. Reference Finder Paste in your own text to find books that relate to your topic. Page 36   E-mail  Facebook  Digg  Stumble  Twitter More Page 36 Front Matter (R1-R10) Summary (1-7) Introduction (8-17) Clarify the Role and Mission of OST (18-21) Put Dicipline into Decision Making (22-35) Expand OST's Reach Outside DOE (36-37) Address Constraints to Technology Implementation (38-43) References (44-48) Appendix A: List of Recommendations from A Review of Decontamination and Decommissioning Technology Development Programs at the Department of Energy (49-51) Appendix B: List of Recommendations from Peer Review in Environmental Technology Development Programs: The Department of Energy's Office of Science and Technology (52-54) Appendix C: List of Recommendations from An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks (55-57) Appendix D: List of Recommendations from The State of Development of Waste Forms for Mixed Wastes: U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management (58-61) Appendix E: List of Recommendations from Groundwater and Soil Cleanup: Improving Management of Persistent Contaminates (62-64) Appendix F: List of Recommendations from Decision Making in the U.S. Department of Energy's Environmental Management Office of Science and Technology (65-71) Appendix G: Acronyms and Abbreviations (72-72) Appendix H: Organizational Structure of Relevant Parts of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management as of August 1999 (73-73)

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 36
4 Expand OST's Reach Outside DOE A criticism in the 1996 CEMT report (NRC, 1996a) and repeated in several of the six reports is that OST had not adequately searched for technologies in the international, domestic industrial, and to a lesser extent, academic communities. For example, the D&D Committee found that capabilities in the private, academic, and foreign sectors for providing advanced D&D technologies were not being identified or used by OST effectively (D&D report, p. 3~. The committee recommended that the DDFA be more aware of technologies developed in the private, academic, and foreign sectors and that it establish a better connection between university and industry programs and prioritized long-term needs (D&D report, p. 4~. The Subsurface Contaminants Committee recommended that the SCFA improve its collaborations with leaders in the field of remediation technology development from outside DOE to avoid duplication of their work and to leverage SCFA funding (Subsurface report, p. 248~. The Decision Making Committee found that OST's approach to technology procurement wherein both OST's Industry Program and other OST organizational units perform some aspects of technology selection and procurement from industry- is cumbersome and duplicative and impairs OST's deployment initiatives (Decision Making report, p. 84~. The committee recommended that OST establish a better coordinated, less duplicative, and less cumbersome system for integration of technology procurement activities, which would involve the use of a comprehensive database of demonstrated and commercially available technologies for assessments (Decision Making report, p. 84~. The committees also expressed concerns about some of OST's efforts to involve external parties. For example, the Mixed Waste Committee criticized the MWFA's privatization efforts, finding that the division of responsibility for technology development among MWFA and its contractors is not clear, nor are 36

OCR for page 37
PUT DISCIPLINE INTO DECISION MAKING 37 the mechanisms for sharing results of technology development efforts well defined (Mixed Waste report, p. 65-66~. Similarly, the D&D Committee was critical of the economic analyses provided by DOE and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, finding that there is a lack of standard methodology, a failure to specify baseline costs, and uncertainties associated with comparative analyses because of different end states (D&D report, p. 26-27~. As a result, the committee recommended that OST adopt a cost estimating approach that could provide a basis for prioritization (D&D report, p. 31~. In its response to the D&D report, OST pointed out that the DDFA maintains a database of over 700 D&D technologies, which incorporates information from a number of international partners (DOE, 1998d). OST also has a database (its World Wide Web-based Technology Management System) to track and manage OST-developed technology projects and programs (DOE, 1999a) and DOE has a database that includes over 12,000 research and development projects currently underway in DOE (DOE, l999b). Based on these responses, it appears that OST has made some progress in creating data systems for environmental management technologies. However, most of these efforts so far appear to be focused on DOE-developed technologies, rather than as a mechanism to search and identify relevant technologies that have been developed external to DOE. RECOMMENDATIONS DOE-EM should be more aware of technologies developed in the private, academic, and foreign sectors (D&D report, p. 3~. OST should establish a better coordinated, less duplicative, and less cumbersome system for integration of technology procurement activities (Decision Making report, p. 84~. OST should improve its formal linkages to demonstrated technologies from outside DOE, perhaps by expanding its existing databases. Doing so will require improving OST's (and DOE's) outreach and ability to identify and use non-DOE technology.

Representative terms from entire chapter:

technology procurement