EPA-SAB-EEC-95-013
March 27, 1995
Honorable Carol M. Browner
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401M Street S.W.
Washington, B.C. 20460
Re: EPA's draft Technology Innovation Strategy
Dear Ms. Browner:
At the request of the EPA Innovative Technology Council (ITC), the
Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) of the Science Advisory Board reviewed
on June 29, 1994 the draft Technology Innovation Strategy (TIS) (EPA 543-K-93-002,
January 1994). The TIS outlines a broad range of actions designed to foster the
development and adoption of innovative technology on behalf of the nation's
environmental protection goals. It identifies a problem and strategy for each of the four
objectives and invites comments, particularly on priorities. The National Advisory
Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) has reviewed the policy
aspects of the TIS, and its report was input to the SAB EEC effort.
The EEC charge was to suggest improvements to the TIS as it was being rewritten
and to consider what role the EEC could play in the future. Inevitably, in order to
address the charge, and due to the nature of the TIS, our comments must include
discussion, opinions and advice on technical managerial matters which sometimes verge
on or are related to policy matters as well as on strictly technical ones. The attached
report presents EEC's major findings; these are briefly summarized as follows:
a) Efficacy ~ Accelerated technology innovation is indispensable to
achieving national goals; the TIS enhances such acceleration.
-------
b) Vision ~ The TIS would be guided more surely by a clear articulation of a
vision shared by stakeholders and a description of a process for its
attainment.
c) Implementation and Measuring Progress ~ The TIS should include
measures of progress and accomplishments. Subjective and objective
means of such measurement, as well as retrospective studies of prior
efforts, are suggested in this report.
d) Project Selection ~ A prioritization scheme for selecting projects under
the Environmental Technology Initiative (ETI) deriving from the TIS is
needed; a possible approach is presented in this report.
e) Communication ~ Broader communication programs should be initiated to
effectively explain the philosophy, policies, and goals of the TIS to the
regions, laboratories, and headquarters.
f) Regulatory Goals ~ The implied premise that technology innovation can
meet all present environmental goals within the next decade is not practical
and needs to be modified as unrealistic goals can stifle innovation.
g) Political Environments ~ As NACEPT discussed, the selection of
technologies for developmental support should be described in the TIS as
primarily being market driven by cost-effectiveness; regulations and politics
then would be less significant.
h) High Technology Overemphasis ~ Striving for new and complex
proprietary technology should be balanced with seeking effective
modification to existing technology, as the latter will often fill market
needs.
i) Cleaner Technologies ~ A science-based concept of "environmental
performance standards" on a multimedia, entire-facility basis should be
considered to stimulate development and application of cleaner
technologies.
j) TIS Prioritization ~ As recommended by NACEPT with regard to the four
strategic objectives, the need to adapt EPA's policy, regulatory, and
compliance programs to promote innovation seems appropriate to receive
the highest priority.
-------
k) Role of Academia ~ Academia should be specifically included as a
participant in the essential elements of advancing science and educating
future innovators.
1) Future ~ The EEC believes an advisory body can provide helpful
suggestions on the alignment of program thrusts with objectives.
Particular emphasis is placed upon Recommendations 2-4.
The SAB appreciates the opportunity to review this important initiative, an
initiative that can have critical impacts on the Nation's efforts toward sustainable
development. Your response will be appreciated on the key points summarized above.
Sincerely,
Gene vie ve M. Matanoski, Chair
Science Advisory Board
Ishwar P. Murarka, Chair
Environmental Engineering Committee
Richard A. Conway, Chair
EEC TIS Review
-------
NOTICE
This report has been written as a part of the activities of the Science Advisory Board, a
public advisory group providing extramural scientific information and advice to the Administrator
and other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Board is structured to provide a
balanced expert assessment of scientific matters related to problems facing the Agency. This
report has not been reviewed for approval by the Agency; and hence, the contents of this report
do not necessarily represent the views and policies of the Environmental protection Agency or
other agencies in Federal government. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute a recommendation for use.
-------
ABSTRACT
The Environmental Engineering Committee of the Science Advisory Board reviewed the
draft Technology Innovation Strategy (TIS) (EPA 543-K-93-002). Overall, the EEC found that
the TIS is an excellent effort by the Agency which identified and developed four worthy
objectives. The EEC made twelve specific findings and recommendations addressing: accelerated
technology innovation, communication, vision, measuring progress, the role of academia,
regulatory goals, political environments, an over emphasis on high technology, cleaner
technologies, prioritization, project selection, and future review of related documents.
Keywords: technology, innovation, strategy, environmental, engineering, development,
demonstration, clean technology
11
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Science Advisory Board(EECROS)
Environmental Engineering Committee
Review of the EPA'S Draft Technology Innovation Strategy
June 29, 1994
Chair
Dr. Ishwar P. Murarka, Manager, Business Development Environment and Vital Issues, Electric
Power Research Institute, 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Members
Dr. Linda M. Abriola, Associate Professor, University of Michigan Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Ann Arbor, MI
Mr. Richard A. Conway, Senior Corporate Fellow Union Carbide Corporation, So. Charleston, WV
Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr., Professor and Chairman Dept. of Civil Engineering, Howard University,
Washington, DC
Dr. Wayne M. Kachel, Director, Oak Ridge Support, Martin Marietta Corporation Oak Ridge, TN
Dr. Jo Ann Lighty, Assistant Professor University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
Dr. James W. Mercer, President, GeoTrans, Inc., Sterling, VA
Dr. Frederick G. Pohland, Weidlein Chair of Environmental Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA
Dr. Robert B. Pojasek, Corporate Vice President/Environmental Programs GEI Consultants, Inc.,
Winchester, MA
ill
-------
Dr. Wm. Randall Seeker, Senior Vice President Energy & Environmental Research Corp., Irvine, CA
Dr. Walter M. Shaub, President, CORRE, Inc., Reston, VA
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER
Mrs. Kathleen W. Conway, Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board (1400F), 401
M Street, S. W., Washington, DC 20460
STAFF SECRETARY
Mrs. Dorothy M. Clark, Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board
(1400F), 401 M Street, S. W., Washington, DC 20460
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2. INTRODUCTION 4
3. FINDINGS 5
3.1 Efficacy/Communication/Focus 5
3.2 Vision/Scope/Emphasis 5
3.3 Implementation Plan 6
3.4 Measuring Progress 7
3.5 Role of Academia 7
3.6 Regulatory Goals as a Barrier to Technological Development 8
3.7 Regulatory and Political Impacts on Technology 9
3.8 Tendency for Overemphasis of Proprietary High Technology 9
3.9 Cleaner Technologies Stimulation 10
3.10 TIS Prioritizations 11
3.11 Consensus Building and Technology Transfer 11
3.12 Looking to the Future 13
4. REFERENCES 14
v
-------
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the request of the EPA Innovative Technology Council (ITC), the Environmental
Engineering Committee of the Science Advisory Board on lune 29, 1994 reviewed the draft
Technology Innovation Strategy (TIS) (EPA 543-K-93-002, January 1994). The TIS outlines
actions to foster the development and adoption of innovative technology on behalf of the Nation's
environmental protection goals.
The TIS identifies a problem and strategy for each of the four objectives. The objectives
relate to: adapting EPA's policy, regulatory and compliance framework to promote innovation;
strengthening the capacity of technology developers and users; investing EPA funds in the
development and commercialization of promising new technologies; and accelerating diffusion of
innovative technologies. In order to address the charge and due to the nature of the TIS, our
comments must include discussion, opinions and advice on technical managerial matters which
sometimes verge on or are related to policy matters as well as on strictly technical ones. We offer
these opinions on the basis of our collective experience in our fields, not only as technical experts
but from our backgrounds in technical management.
The EEC's major findings and recommendations are summarized
as follows:
a) Efficacy - The SAB agrees that accelerated technology innovation is
indispensable to achieving national goals, and finds that the TIS enhances such
acceleration.
b) Vision — As with any strategy, the TIS would be guided more surely by a clear
articulation of a clear vision statement and a description of a process for its
attainment. The vision should be recorded, shared, and accepted by the
participants. The niche assigned/co-opted by EPA in the Nation's endeavors for
environmental technology innovation should be more clearly described in terms of
a focused and stable program, consistent with funding levels.
c) Implementation and Measuring Progress — The TIS should include means to
measure progress and accomplishments. Both subjective and objective means are
suggested in this report. Retrospective studies of prior EPA technology programs
are recommended.
-------
d) Project Selection — A prioritization scheme is needed; some elements are given in
Table I.
e) Communication — Adequate and timely communication programs should be
emphasized within EPA to effectively explain the philosophy, policies, and goals of
the TIS to the staff at various levels involved in the decision-making process so
that clarity aconsistency can be maintained while implementing the Strategy.
f) Regulatory Goals — The implied premise that technology innovation can meet all
present environmental goals within the next decade is not practical and needs to be
reexamined and modified as unrealistic goals can stifle innovation.
g) Political Environments — As NACEPT discussed, the selection of technologies for
developmental support under the TIS should be described as market driven by
cost-effectiveness; regulations and politics then would be less significant elements
in influencing such selection.
h) High Technology Overemphasis — The emphasis on new and complex proprietary
technology should be balanced with seeking effective modification of existing
technology, as the latter often will fill market needs.
i) Cleaner Technologies — The concept of science-based "environmental
performance standards" on a multimedia, entire-facility basis should be considered
for addition to the TIS to provide the flexibility needed to stimulate development
and application of cleaner technologies.
j) TIS Prioritization — As recommended by NACEPT with regard to the four
strategic objectives, the need to adapt EPA's policy, regulatory, and compliance
programs to promote innovation should receive the highest priority and most
attention, since it will be essential for achievement of the other objectives and will
thereby require concerted effort over a sustained time period.
k) Role of Academia — Academia should be specifically included as a participant in
the essential elements of advancing science and educating future innovators.
1) Future — Specific comments regarding FY95 ETI thrusts cannot be made, since
the information was not available for the Committee to review. However, the
EEC believes an advisory body can provide helpful suggestions on the alignment of
-------
program thrusts with objectives, and suggests such information be addressed at a
SAB review in the formative stages of the thrust areas for FY96.
Details of each finding along with commentary are presented herein.
-------
2. INTRODUCTION
At the request of the EPA Innovative Technology Council (ITC), the Environmental
Engineering Committee of the Science Advisory Board on June 29, 1994 reviewed the draft
Technology Innovation Strategy (TIS) (EPA 543-K-93-002, January 1994). The TIS outlines
actions to foster the development and adoption of innovative technology on behalf of the Nation's
environmental protection goals. The TIS identifies a problem and strategy for each of four
objectives and invites comment, particularly on priorities. The objectives are:
a) "Adapt EPA's Policy, Regulatory and Compliance Framework to Promote
Innovation;
b) Strengthen the Capacity of Technology Developers and Users to Succeed in
Environmental Technology Innovation;
c) Strategically Invest EPA Funds in the Development and Commercialization of
Promising New Technologies; and
d) Accelerate Diffusion of Innovative Technologies at Home and Abroad".
The co-chairs of the ITC Strategy Committee briefed the EEC on 29 June 1994. The
EEC charge was to suggest improvements to the TIS as it was being rewritten and to consider
what role the EEC could play in the future, e.g., concerning the planned gaps analysis, FY95
program and FY96 thrusts. The National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and
Technology (NACEPT) has reviewed the policy aspects of the TIS, and its report was input to
the SAB EEC effort. In order to address the charge, and due to the nature of the TIS, our
comments must include discussion, opinions and advice on technical managerial matters which
sometimes verge on or are related to policy matters as well as on strictly technical ones. We offer
these opinions on the basis of our collective experience in our fields not only as technical experts
but from our backgrounds in technical management.
-------
3. FINDINGS
3.1 Efficacy/Communication/Focus
Overall, the TIS is an excellent effort by the Agency, and four worthy objectives have
been identified. Clear articulation of a vision will surely fortify the TIS.
The Agency needs to prepare for the introduction of this new program. Since the EEC discerned
only limited effort toward this end,the EEC recommends that the EPA develop an internal
communication plan, particularly with the regions, and a management plan be established to allow
the Agency and its permitting process to nurture environmental technology innovation.
There is a danger in focusing entirely on delivering short-term results; given such a focus,
new barriers will tend to develop and with them, changes in technology advancement will be
impeded. Of the four objectives, the first objective should have the highest and main priority to
achieve both short- and long-term results. This objective is an essential driver for achievement of
the other objectives and would require concerted effort over a sustained time period.
3.2 Vision/Scope/Emphasis
The TIS must begin with a shared vision statement for the initiative; this will provide
consistent understanding and direction for all participants. While the EEC perceives that a vision
is implicit in the Strategy and/or in the August 1993 National Performance Review: Report of the
Environmental Technology Team prepared for Administrator Browner (U.S. EPA, August 1993)
clear delineation of a vision must be developed to guide implementation. The EPA undoubtedly
has a vision in mind, but it should be clearly recorded, shared, and accepted by the participants.
EPA representatives indicated that a vision could be found in the National Performance Review
(U.S. EPA, August 1993); such a vision statement needs to be reviewed and made a part of the
Strategy. In fact, the development of the shared vision statement could be a critical step in
developing the "buy-in" necessary to ensure successful implementation. The development of a
vision statement also provides opportunity for broader stakeholder involvement.
A second starting element that needs further clarification is the definition of "innovative
technology." The intended scope of this term was not clear to the EEC, and there appeared to be
some discrepancies between potential definitions and proposed objectives. For example,
innovative environmental technologies might imply sophisticated, high performance systems or
processes. However, such systems/processes are unlikely to be suitable for export to developing
-------
countries where more basic, low cost systems/processes may be critically needed. The EEC also
considered it important to include innovative combinations or integrations of technologies to
solve environmental problems, since the more complex multimedia environmental problems will
likely not be solved by applications of singular technologies. In addition, the EEC believed that a
definition of when a technology
progressed from innovative to commercially available would be helpful. Objective #3 suggests
that there are select technologies poised on the brink of commercial deployment that only need
EPA's limited assistance to make the breakthrough. If these technologies are so poised, then they
likely have already gone through the innovation process.
The Strategy presents confusing information about what an innovative technology might
be and where/how it might be applied. There is an implied focus on efficiency or improvements to
existing systems, or identification of approaches/systems which are in the final stages of testing or
delivery. The Agency appears to be focusing on approaches which can be implemented or
commercialized quickly and thus become the next "best" available technology in the short-term;
the emergence of new concepts might be stifled by such a short-term focus.
3.3 Implementation Plan
The normal next step in developing a strategic plan is to identify a process which the
Agency will use to establish where they are now relative to where they want to go, i.e.,
implementing the vision. The EEC supports the continued discussion of the Strategy with
stakeholders through workshops. However, this is not adequate to completely define where the
Agency is relative to both desired environmental technological capabilities and ongoing
technologies development by industry and other agencies. The gaps study could contribute to this
process; but the committee did not directly review the plans for this study. Nonetheless, the
Strategy should define how the present status could be assessed in relation to the strategic goals
e.g., internal EPA input, cost-benefit analyses, interviews with target environmental control
experts. A series of self studies might be useful in areas such as Superfund and wastewater
treatment. How did EPA help or hinder technology innovation? How could EPA help? The
EEC recommends that such a self study or retrospective evaluation be developed and included in
the Strategy.
3.4 Measuring Progress
-------
In addition to the above means for tracking implementation, any effective strategic plan
can benefit from quantitative means of measuring progress toward achieving the vision. The
selection of appropriate metrics is tied to the vision. If an outcome is important, then progress
toward that outcome must be periodically measured and mid-course corrections made, if needed.
Since the document does not clearly articulate a vision, it is not possible to establish ways
to measure progress with a high degree of certainty. However, the EEC offers the following for
consideration. Measures of progress for development and use of innovative technology should
reliably (credibly) indicate whether, compared to baseline technology, the following results are
achieved.
a) increases in the ratio of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to the quantity of a
contaminant of interest,
b) decreases in the contaminants of interest in absolute terms,
c) increases in conservation of raw materials,
d) increases in number of environmental patents awarded to U.S. citizens, and, if
possible, the number of patents actually licensed and/or put into practice.
e) increases in number of compliance permits tied to a pollution prevention initiative,
f) increases in job creation in the proposed environmental technology Standard
Industrial Code (SIC),
g) increases in consulting services by U.S. firms at home and overseas or partnering
with foreign firms.
No one parameter can fully measure progress; several will be needed.
3.5 Role of Academia
A basic tenet of the Strategy should be the assurance of sufficiency, translation, and
sustenance of good science by a cadre of well-trained professionals both within and outside the
Agency. Scientific input should be given in the areas of technology identification, development
and certification, recognition of technology gaps, adjusting for future needs, and assessing the
adequacy of an approach and providing tools for implementation. In this regard, academia is
considered a vital participant and contributor to the success of the Strategy. This participation
7
-------
should involve both scientific interpret!on and leadership of technology development through
education and research, and the endowment of complementary educational credentials and
associated expertise of its graduates who will constitute a significant element of the environmental
workforce of the future. The need to forge a partnering alliance with academia should be clearly
acknowledged, and enabling mechanisms should be established consonant with a concomitant
support structure to make this output a reality. Scientific advances are often the starting points of
the innovation process. Investigation into basic concepts or science should continue to stimulate
innovation as well as benefit the completion of partially developed technologies beyond the limits
of current science.
3.6 Regulatory Goals as a Barrier to Technological Development
An unstated, but implicit assumption of the TIS is that technology will be capable of
meeting existing regulatory standards. The presumption is that innovative technologies will help
reach these goals in a more rapid or cost-effective manner. In many instances, however,
regulatory standards or goals may not be technologically achievable, at least within the next
decade or beyond. These goals, in turn, can create barriers to innovation.
For example, the concentrations of particular contaminants are regulated to the part per
billion level in ground water systems. Such concentration levels are deemed by respected
scientific bodies to be unachievable within a reasonable time frame (i.e, 50 years) at many
Superfund sites. (Alternatives for Ground Water Clean-Up. National Research Council, 1994)
Innovative or non-traditional technologies, such as bioremediation or chemical flushing, may offer
the potential to reduce contaminant levels and risks at such sites. In the existing regulatory
climate, however, there is little incentive to develop and market technologies whose performance
will ultimately fall short of regulatory standards. Thus, in order to achieve its stated objectives,
the TIS should incorporate a plan to examine the process of establishing regulatory
goals/standards, and their influence on technological development.
3.7 Regulatory and Political Impacts on Technology
As NACEPT discussed, the reality is that in the environmental control technology arena,
the Agency determines the market via the establishment and implementation of regulations. The
8
-------
Agency's response to political pressures tends to erect barriers to innovation, resulting in
regulatory inconsistencies that give rise to marketplace uncertainties. Few investors are willing to
venture forth into the market not knowing which direction political forces will turn the Agency.
For the market to take a defined course, the Agency must become a more flexible, facilitating and
predictable partner.
Technology has an important and complex role to play in environmental protection. For
example, through the years, the remediation process has become more intensive in litigation and
paperwork to the detriment of clean-up technology use. As a result, the return on investment of
resources in terms of actual environmental protection is relatively small. The solution may be less
prescriptive regulation and more science-based decisions in the regulatory process. The process
seems much too complex to expect the Agency to simply regulate innovative technologies into
existence.
Perhaps the Agency should define the playing field and then let the market place work;
NACEPT could address this policy issue.
The EEC realizes that this is a paradigm shift for the Agency. It is one that can be
achieved neither quickly nor without pain. Because of this, the EEC believes that Objective #1
contained in the Strategy is, without a doubt, the most important.
3.8 Tendency for Overemphasis of Proprietary High Technology
One of the stated objectives of the TIS is to promote and accelerate the diffusion of
innovative technologies at home and abroad. This objective implies that the categories of
technologies promoted must satisfy the environmental control needs of the prospective clients in
terms of effectiveness, cost, reliability and operability.
Intrinsic to the Strategy developed by the Agency is the assumption that the effective and
marketable environmental control technologies will utilize so-called high-tech, sometimes
proprietary, advances. In reality, modifications to conventional, low-to-medium technologies may
be more marketable in some advanced countries and certainly in most developing countries.
International economic status would most likely constrain technology acquisition interests to
those that are affordable in terms of technical/administrative requirements for their
implementation.
3.9 Cleaner Technologies Stimulation
-------
EPA should consider including the Strategy element of stimulating the development of
cleaner technologies by industry through a science-based concept of multimedia, entire-facility
environmental performance standards. For example, instead of having predetermined, set permits
for each release point in a given industrial facility, the permit writer would have the flexibility to
allow, on a risk-reduction basis, appropriate "leeway" on some environmental releases if others
were reduced, ideally through pollution prevention, so that the overall environmental impact/risk
of a facility is reduced. The extent of leeway would be science- based in terms of being well
within the uncertainty range associated with the standard. For example, for conventional water
pollutants, such as suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand, the uncertainty of adverse
effects might be estimated either by scientific method or by consensus expert judgement as being
about 25%. Thus, for this example, a facility would be allowed to exceed the National Standards
by 25% on these point sources if it reduced its overall environmental impact more by reducing
some other releases, such as to the atmosphere, especially by preventing the generation of
pollution through cleaner technology.
Technology-based standards became a barrier to new or innovative technology literally
because they were defined as "best available", and performance evaluation is based on these
standards. This barrier could be penetrated by setting processes that make standards which
involve goals such as pollution prevention, risk reduction, levels of risk management or relative
risk. Flexibility in parameters of success of a technology or impact of an entire waste stream
rather than individual pollutant standards could do more for technology innovation than searching
for new technologies to respond to existing definitions of waste streams. This is especially
important in light of the plan to identify and "focus on technologies at critical points of
development", that is, those which are ripe for development or simply lack the resources for final
commercialization or implementation.
10
-------
3.10 TIS Prioritizations
As part of the overall TIS, an implementation program that documents the process and
provides accountability is clearly needed. Part of this implementation program requires a
prioritization scheme that will rank the myriad of tested and untested environmental technologies
in terms of their relative importance and timely contributions within the context of the ETI. This
prioritization scheme would be used in the planning process to decide what technologies should
be funded, tested, and possibly commercialized. This process would allow limited resources to be
directed to the most promising technologies. Objectives #1, #2, and #3 will facilitate the
development of the technologies receiving priority, while the successful commercialization of a
technology will fulfill Objective #4.
In developing a prioritization scheme to accomplish the above screening, several factors to
be considered fall into three general categories: 1) Technical, 2) Economic, and 3) Procedural. A
first attempt at developing the factors within each category and a qualitative ranking system to
evaluate each of the factors is presented in Table 1 in this report (page 12). Each factor is judged
on a scale of 1 to 5 (from least to most promising), so that the higher the cumulative score, the
greater the opportunities for technology development and application. The ranking scale may
change depending upon the final vision governing the TIS and ETI.
3.11 Consensus Building and Technology Transfer
Consensus building on practical strategy and technology focus can be of benefit and can be
successfully accomplished through discussions in the form of national technical consensus forums
or workshops that involve all the major players in the technology innovation area. The recent
efforts such as the Remediation Technology Development Forum (RDTF), DNAPL Workshops,
and "Decision Support Tools Workshop" that either involved EPA or were arranged by the
Agency are good examples of such consensus building and technology transfer.
11
-------
TABLE 1
SOME SUGGESTED PRIORITIZATION FACTORS
Rating Scale
(a)
Factors
1.0 1.5
2.0 1.5
3.0 3.5
4.0
1. TECHNICAL
Stage ofTechnology
Development
Potential for Breakthrough
Performance Improvement
Potential for Breakthrough
Cost Reduction
Likelihood of
Reaching Objective
Soundness of Scientific
Basis
Relative Risk of Problem
Addressed
Position in Waste
Management Hierarchy
II. ECONOMIC IMPACT
Job Creation
Commercialization Potential
Market Share Potential
Breadth of Application
Export Potential
III. IMPLEMENTATION
Ease of Implementation
Permitability (or Waiver)
Strength of Regulatory
Drivers
Duration of Regulatory
Drivers
Public Acceptance
Conceptual or Mature
Incremental Advance
Incremental
Advance
Unlikely
Not defined
Low Relative Risk
End-of-Pipe
Control
Few
Low
Small
Narrow
Low
Difficult
Difficult
Weak
Short-term
Difficult
Single Large Scale Test
Step Change
Step
Change
Fair Chance
Fair basis
Medium Relative Risk
Clean-up or
Recycle
Some
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium-term
Medium
Proven Pilot or
Bench Scale
Break-through
Break-
through
Likely
Firm basis
High Relative Risk
Pollution
Prevention
Many
High
High
Broad
High
Easy
Easy
Strong
Long-term
Easy
(a) Rate each factor 1.0 to 4.0; then add all factor scores for total rating of project.
12
-------
3.12 Looking to the Future
In response to its charge, the EEC examined how it or some peer review body might
participate as the ETI and TIS move along. Specific comments regarding FY95 thrusts cannot be
made, since the information was not available for the Committee to review. However, if the
thrusts parallel the eclectic FY94 mix, it is unlikely that program objectives will be effectively met.
The EEC believes a peer review body can provide helpful suggestions to the congruence of
program thrusts and objectives, and suggests such information be discussed at a SAB review in
the formative stages of the thrust areas for FY96.
13
-------
4. REFERENCES
Technology Innovation Strategy (TIS) (EPA 543-K-93-002), January 1994
Environmental Technology Initiative: FY94 Program Plan (EPA 543-K-93-003),
January 1994
National Performance Review: Report of the Environmental Technology Team,
August, 1993.
Alternatives to Ground Water Clean-Up, National Research Council, National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1994
14
-------
Distribution List
Administrator
Deputy Administrator
Assistant Administrators
Regional Administrators
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Office of Radiation Programs
Office of Water
Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology Demonstration
15
------- |