We also found that DOE did not have a comprehensive needs assessment for ranking and funding technology development projects as effectively as possible. As a result, no comprehensive list of EM’s technology development projects had been compiled. At our request, OST compiled a comprehensive list of all DOE-funded melter projects. This list revealed that DOE had contributed funds for 60 different melters at various sites across the country and fully funded 52 of them. Within each focus area, the funding for projects has begun to be concentrated at the lead sites. The Tanks focus area used an elaborate system of technical review, but many of the reviewers were not independent. A senior technical adviser in the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste Management commented on our statement that, despite the promising steps taken to improve the management of technology development, it is not clear that OST can effectively coordinate technology development across EM’s program offices without EM’s leadership and support. According to the Office of Waste Management, EM has given OST leadership and support to coordinate technology development. Specifically, we determined whether EM is managing its program to prevent (1) excessive duplication and unnecessary overlap and (2) an unwarranted concentration of projects at certain field offices.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined how the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) is managing its technology development program.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) EM has not coordinated its technology development activities among its program offices; (2) there is no comprehensive listing of EM technology development projects; (3) several DOE offices have funded 60 different melter projects at various locations; (4) there is a significant increase in technology development projects at certain field sites designated as lead sites for particular focus areas; (5) DOE does not use independent reviewers to ensure that project proposals receive equal treatment; (6) DOE has scheduled a comprehensive review of all technology development projects, combined two focus areas into one, and begun closing out melter projects to reduce duplication and overlap; and (7) DOE can not coordinate technology development projects without EM leadership and support.