Nuclear Waste Cleanup: Progress Made but DOE Management Attention Needed
to Increase Use of Innovative Technologies (Testimony, 05/26/99,
GAO/T-RCED-99-190).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed the Department of
Energy's (DOE) efforts to implement GAO's recommendations to improve the
deployment of innovative cleanup technologies, focusing on whether DOE:
(1) established coordination between technology developers and users;
(2) modified completed technologies to meet site-specific needs; (3)
provided technical assistance to sites; and (4) improved the quality of
deployment data.
GAO noted that: (1) DOE's Office of Science and Technology (OST) has
begun several actions to improve coordination between technology
developers and users, such as setting its priorities according to the
users' stated technology needs; (2) however, OST is still not using the
decision-making system it developed that requires user involvement
during development and user commitment before investing in demonstrating
a technology; (3) rather, OST is using elements of this system in its
annual project reviews; (4) although these reviews have benefits, they
are being implemented inconsistently and they may not provide enough
management attention to developer and user cooperation as a technology
progresses through development phases; (5) more assurance may be needed
that users will ultimately deploy the technologies being pursued and
that a specific go/no-go decision is made before substantial investments
are made; (6) DOE cites its Accelerated Site Technology Deployment
program as addressing concerns about technologies being too generic to
be readily implemented at cleanup sites; (7) this program provides
funding to DOE sites for their first use of an innovative technology
developed by OST or other organizations; (8) however, the program funds
only a limited number of projects and funding does not necessarily have
to be used for modifications; (9) OST is establishing lead national
laboratories for each of its focus areas to increase its level of
technical expertise; (10) since OST is still defining the role of the
lead laboratories, it is too early to assess the impact of this change
on improving expertise; (11) furthermore, without requiring that an OST
representative participate in technology selection, it is unclear
whether improving focus areas' expertise alone will result in more
consultations with sites; (12) OST has conducted a study that verified
the deployments reported for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 and has taken
several steps to improve the quality of data input; (13) however, the
data being entered into OST's database continue to have a high degree of
errors with only about half of the deployments being correct as listed
in the database; (14) OST plans to hire consultants to help identify the
causes of poor data quality and recommend improved approaches; and (15)
OST plans to improve the information on vendors in its database by
linking information in the database with credit of deployment.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: T-RCED-99-190
TITLE: Nuclear Waste Cleanup: Progress Made but DOE Management
Attention Needed to Increase Use of Innovative
Technologies
DATE: 05/26/99
SUBJECT: Data integrity
Technical assistance
Environmental monitoring
Nuclear waste management
Pollution control
Nuclear waste disposal
Technology transfer
Environmental policies
IDENTIFIER: OST Accelerated Site Technology Deployment Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. This text was extracted from a PDF file. **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into **
** body text in the adjacent column. Graphic images have **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included. **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been **
** preserved. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
NUCLEAR WASTE CLEANUP: Progress Made but DOE Management Attention
Needed to Increase Use of Innovative Technologies GAO/T-RCED-99-
190 United States General Accounting Office
GAO Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations,
Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives For Release on
Delivery Expected at 9: 30 a. m. EDT Wednesday May 26, 1999
NUCLEAR WASTE CLEANUP
Progress Made but DOE Management Attention Needed to Increase Use
of Innovative Technologies
Statement of Ms. Gary L. Jones, Associate Director Energy,
Resources, and Science Issues Resources, Community, and Economic
Development Division
GAO/T-RCED-99-190
GAO/T-RCED-99-190
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be
here today to discuss the Department of Energy's (DOE) progress in
using the innovative technologies it has developed for cleaning up
the hazardous and radioactive contaminants at its sites. These
sites present environmental and human health concerns as a result
of 50 years of nuclear weapons research, testing, and production
activities. Since 1990, DOE has received about $2.7 billion for
developing innovative cleanup technologies and has initiated over
800 projects. According to DOE's data, 179 of the technologies
have been deployed at DOE's sites, 100 of which have been used
only once. 1 Our September 1998 report to this Committee made
several recommendations to address DOE management problems that
presented obstacles to selecting and using innovative
technologies. 2 The potential benefits of innovative technologies
to reduce costs or speed cleanups cannot be realized unless these
obstacles are overcome.
Our testimony is primarily based on our 1998 report and on DOE's
actions in response to our recommendations. For this hearing, you
asked us to follow up on DOE's responses to our 1998 findings and
recommendations on (1) coordination between technology developers
and users, (2) modifying completed technologies to meet site-
specific needs, (3) technical assistance to sites concerning
innovative technologies, and (4) the quality of data on
deployment. In addition, you asked us to determine what
information is maintained and made available to sites on the
vendor companies for the cleanup technologies that DOE has
developed. In summary, we found the following:
As we reported in 1998, a key obstacle to deploying innovative
technologies has been the lack of coordination between the
technology developers in DOE's Office of Science and Technology
(OST) and the end users of technologies at DOE's cleanup sites. As
a result, some technologies have not met users' requirements.
Since our report, OST has begun several actions to improve
coordination between technology developers and users, such as
setting its priorities according to the users' stated technology
needs. However, OST is still not using the decision- making system
it developed that requires user involvement during development and
user commitment before investing in demonstrating a technology.
Rather, OST is using elements of this system in its annual project
reviews. Although these reviews have benefits, they are being
implemented
1 Figures are from DOE's data as of May 1999, some of which has
not been verified. 2 Nuclear Waste: Further Actions Needed to
Increase the Use of Innovative Cleanup Technologies (GAO/RCED-98-
249, Sept. 25, 1998).
GAO/T-RCED-99-190 Page 1
inconsistently and they may not provide enough management
attention to developer and user cooperation as a technology
progresses though development phases. More assurance may be needed
that users will ultimately deploy the technologies being pursued
and that a specific go/ no- go decision is made before substantial
investments are made.
Our 1998 report noted that some OST- developed technologies were
too generic to be readily implemented at sites and that
responsibilities and funding sources for modifying technologies to
meet site- specific needs were unclear. DOE cites its Accelerated
Site Technology Deployment program as addressing these concerns.
This program provides funding to DOE sites for their first use of
an innovative technology developed by OST or other organizations.
However, the program funds only a limited number of projects and
funding does not necessarily have to be used for modifications.
More could be done to proactively promote OST's technologies by
identifying potential applications and alternative DOE funding for
modifications, if needed.
We found that the technical expertise of OST's focus areas varied
and that site officials were sometimes reluctant to consult with
them. 3 As a result, cleanup sites were not consistently getting
technical assistance to identify alternative solutions to cleanup
problems. OST is currently establishing lead national laboratories
for each of its focus areas to increase its level of expertise.
Since OST is still defining the role of the lead laboratories, it
is too early to assess the impact of this change on improving
expertise. Furthermore, without requiring that an OST
representative participate in technology selection, as we
recommended, it is unclear whether improving focus areas'
expertise alone will result in more consultations with sites.
In our 1998 report, we found that OST's data on the deployment of
its technologies were of poor quality. Specifically, we found
that, in deployment instances claimed from the start of the
program through January 1998, 38 percent should not have been
counted as deployments. The most common type of error we found was
counting technology demonstrations that did not result in cleanup
progress as deployments. OST has since conducted a study that
verified the deployments reported for fiscal years 1997 and 1998
and has taken several steps to improve the quality of data input
such as issuing a definition of deployment. However, the data
being entered into OST's database continue to have a high degree
of errors with only about half of the deployments being correct as
listed in
3 OST has five focus areas that manage technology development
projects for the major cleanup problems that DOE faces, such as
radioactive tank waste remediation.
GAO/T-RCED-99-190 Page 2
the database. OST plans to hire consultants to help identify the
causes of poor data quality and recommend improved approaches. If,
as a result of its study, OST develops and systematically
implements an approach for ensuring the accuracy of its data, the
quality of deployment data needed to manage the program may
improve.
Finally, OST's database, which is available to end users at
sites, generally contains information to allow sites to identify
and contact vendors. However, these data can become out of date
because companies move, merge, sell their patents, or make other
changes. OST plans to improve the information on vendors in its
database by, for example, linking information in the database with
credit for deployment.
Background The Office of Science and Technology, which is within
DOE's Office of Environmental Management (EM), develops new
technologies that could
accelerate cleanup, reduce costs, reduce risks to cleanup workers,
or enable cleanup activities for which no cost- effective
technologies exist. For fiscal years 1990 through 1999, the
Congress provided a total of approximately $2.7 billion for the
development of innovative cleanup technologies, and OST has
initiated over 800 development projects.
OST is currently organized into five focus areas for specific
remediation activities: mixed waste characterization, treatment,
and disposal; radioactive tank waste remediation; subsurface
contaminants; deactivation and decommissioning; and nuclear
materials. The focus areas were established in 1994 to concentrate
OST's resources on each of the major cleanup problems that DOE
faces. A field office that is responsible for the day- to- day
management of technology development projects leads each focus
area. For example, the Savannah River Operations Office manages
the subsurface contaminants focus area, and the Richland
Operations Office manages the radioactive tank waste remediation
focus area. The focus areas use DOE's national laboratories,
private companies under contract to OST, and universities to
conduct technology research and development projects.
Although OST is responsible for technology development, DOE's
waste sites are responsible for selecting the technologies they
will use, with the review and approval of the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency and state agencies that regulate DOE's cleanups
and with input from the public
GAO/T-RCED-99-190 Page 3
involved with the site. 4 Each DOE field office has established
site technology coordination groups to identify sites' technology
needs, provide OST and its focus areas with information, and
communicate information about OST's technology development
projects to the cleanup sites.
Actions Needed to Increase Coordination Between Technology
Developers and End Users
In our 1998 report, we found that OST was not sufficiently
involving end users during the development of new technologies. As
a result, no customers have been identified for some of the
technologies that OST has sponsored. Of the 171 technologies that
OST had completed as of March 1999, 59 technologies, costing about
$76 million to develop, have not been used by DOE cleanup sites. 5
Although OST developed a decision- making system in 1997 that
would provide for users' involvement in projects during the
development process, the agency was not consistently using this
system, known as the gates system. The gates system identifies
seven stages of the technology development process: basic
research, applied research, exploratory development, advanced
development, engineering development, demonstration, and
implementation. The gates are decision points preceding each
stage. The gates system includes requirements such as identifying
specific user needs, defining users' performance requirements, and
before investing in a demonstration, obtaining users' commitments
to deploy the technology if it meets the performance requirements.
OST designed the gates system to provide its focus areas with a
process and criteria for making go/ no- go decisions at various
points during a project's development. One reason why the gates
system has not been extensively used was that it would lead to the
termination of some technology projects, an outcome resisted by
the focus areas and national laboratories. We recommended that OST
rigorously and consistently use its gates system as a decision-
making tool for managing its projects and as a vehicle for
increasing cooperation between developers and users.
OST did not implement our recommendation. The Acting Deputy
Assistant Secretary for OST told us that the office needed to
determine how best to implement the gates system and whom to
involve in the gates system reviews. However, OST has incorporated
elements of the gates system in its
4 Remediation activities at DOE's facilities are governed by the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980, as amended, and the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, as amended. These acts lay out the
requirements for identifying waste sites, studying the extent of
their contamination and identifying possible remedies, and
involving the public in making decisions about the sites.
5 Figures are from OST data as of March 1999.
GAO/T-RCED-99-190 Page 4
existing project reviews. Specifically, in March 1999, the Acting
Deputy Assistant Secretary issued a memorandum directing the focus
areas to use the major criteria from the gates system in annual
assessments of their projects, known as midyear reviews. The
midyear reviews address the progress of each project, the
importance and feasibility of the technologies under development,
the development stage of the project, and whether it has met the
requirements in the gates system for that stage of development.
The memo states that end users should be involved in the reviews
and that focus areas should address the question, Has an end user
made a commitment to implement the technology? The requirements in
the gates system, however, are more specific. For instance, end
users' performance requirements must be incorporated before the
project enters the advanced development stage. The Acting Deputy
Assistant Secretary told us that he considers the midyear review
guidance to be a first step in fully implementing the gates
system.
We have some initial concerns about what has been implemented to
date. We reviewed criteria that four of the focus areas had
developed for their midyear review panels to use. 6 Only one of
the focus areas deactivation and decommissioning linked the review
criteria to the development stage of the project, as the gates
system does. This focus area provided reviewers with different
sets of questions for projects in basic science research, applied
development, demonstration, and deployment stages. We also note
that, unlike the other three focus areas, the radioactive tank
waste remediation focus area did not review all of its projects,
but only those that were about to be demonstrated or deployed, or
that had concerns identified at previous reviews.
While using some of the gates system criteria in the midyear
reviews may be beneficial, we do not believe that the midyear
reviews provide enough management attention to help ensure
developer and user interaction and cooperation as a technology
progresses though development phases. A fully implemented gates
system could provide more assurance that the technologies being
pursued are needed and will ultimately be deployed by users and
that a specific go/ no- go decision is made before substantial
investments are made.
DOE has taken some other actions to better integrate the needs and
technical requirements of end users into its technology
development projects. For example, EM has set up user steering
committees to advise
6 Three focus areas have held their reviews, but as of May 10,
1999, review reports were not yet available. A fourth focus area
plans to hold its midyear review during the last week of May 1999,
while the fifth focus area does not plan a midyear review this
year.
GAO/T-RCED-99-190 Page 5
each of OST's focus areas, which carry out the development and
demonstration of technologies. The user steering committees help
focus areas develop their program plans. In addition, beginning
with its fiscal year 2000 budget submission, OST used a new
priority- ranking system for its program that analyzed sites' data
on their specific cleanup projects and needs. The new priority-
ranking system used information that sites generated for DOE's
Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure strategy 7 rather than
information generated by OST personnel. Priorities for OST's
fiscal year 2000 funding decisions were based on factors such as
the number and costs of DOE's cleanup projects that could benefit
from the proposed technology development work, the degree to which
the proposed work addresses the technology needs of the sites, and
whether sites plan to deploy the resulting technologies. OST plans
to continue using this user- based priority system. According to
OST officials, the system encourages the focus areas to work more
closely with end users at sites to identify work that will meet
their needs. These initiatives move the program in the right
direction. However, these initiatives, like the midyear reviews,
also do not substitute for the full implementation of the gates
system. Continued attention by OST management and focus areas will
be needed to fully implement these initiatives and make developer-
user cooperation a routine part of doing business.
Identification of Responsibilities for Modifying Technologies Is
Needed
During our 1998 review, DOE field staff and contractor personnel
responsible for cleanup told us that, in many cases, OST had
developed generic solutions that either do not meet specific site
needs or must be modified before they could be used. Site
officials told us that it was unclear who was responsible for
paying for the modifications to those technologies that could
prove useful. For example, Hanford officials were interested in
using OST's Electrical Resistance Tomography to help detect leaks
in their high- level radioactive waste tanks. However, a Hanford
official said that the technology needed substantial fine- tuning
to make it work on the Hanford tanks and that no funding was
available at the time. In some cases, technology vendors have been
willing to fund the necessary modifications, but for some needs
unique to a DOE site, the market may be too small to elicit such
an investment from vendors. We recommended that OST identify the
technologies that could be cost- effectively used to meet sites'
needs and that EM identify funds for modification if needed.
7 Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure is an annual report on
EM's strategy and progress in cleaning up the remaining 53
contaminated sites. Its development requires sites to identify the
scope of work, time frames, and costs for each of the more than
350 projects at the cleanup sites.
GAO/T-RCED-99-190 Page 6
DOE has not addressed this recommendation. In its written response
to our report, DOE cited OST's Accelerated Site Technology
Deployment (ASTD) program as addressing sites' concerns about
using new technologies. ASTD provides DOE sites with funding for
their first use of an innovative technology developed by OST or
other organizations. The program is intended to increase the use
of technologies that could speed cleanup or reduce costs. OST
competitively evaluates sites' proposals for ASTD projects to
select projects to fund. Of the 46 ASTD projects that OST has
funded to date, 36 are using technologies developed by OST. 8 The
sites receiving ASTD funds must also provide funding for
implementing the technologies, and ASTD funds are not targeted to
specific purposes within the project, such as paying for
modifications to technologies.
While ASTD may have facilitated some deployments, OST could be
more proactive in identifying potential uses for its technologies
and providing sites with assistance in such cases. This is
particularly important, given that, of the 171 technologies that
OST had completed by March 1999, 59 technologies or more than 30
percent have never been used by the sites. Of the 112 completed
technologies used by the sites, about half have been used only
once. Such proactive assistance might involve providing
information on OST's technologies and technical advice or working
with the sites to arrange and share the costs of technology
modifications, if needed and cost- effective. These actions could
identify additional cost- effective uses for technologies that OST
has already completed and provide a greater return on past
investments in the development of technology.
Some Actions Have Been Taken to Provide Sites With Technical
Assistance, but Requirement Is Still Lacking
In our 1998 review, we found that OST was not fulfilling its role
of providing users with the technical advice and assistance that
they need to identify solutions to cleanup problems and to help
implement those solutions. Focus areas' abilities to provide
technical assistance varied, and some site officials told us that
they were reluctant to consult with the focus areas because they
were not convinced of the focus areas' technical expertise. We
recommended that OST increase the expertise available for
providing technical assistance on innovative technologies. We also
recommended that EM require that an expert from OST participate in
technology selection processes for site cleanup projects.
8 In fiscal year 1998, OST provided $27 million in funding for the
14 ASTD projects selected from its first call for proposals. In
fiscal year 1999, OST is providing $16.8 million for 32 additional
ASTD projects selected from its second call for proposals, as well
as $14.7 million for nine of the first projects that continue into
a second year. Another eight ASTD projects selected from the
second call for proposals are expected to begin in fiscal year
2000.
GAO/T-RCED-99-190 Page 7
DOE has taken some actions to implement our recommendation for
increasing technical expertise. Specifically, OST recently
selected a lead national laboratory for each of its focus areas.
The purpose of establishing the lead laboratories is to improve
the technical expertise available to the focus areas for assessing
their technology development projects, identifying promising basic
research for further development, and providing sites with
technical assistance. With the exception of the radioactive tank
waste focus area, which has worked with a national laboratory for
several years, OST is currently in the process of defining the
roles and responsibilities for their lead laboratories.
It is too soon to tell whether establishing lead laboratories will
result in sites requesting technical assistance from OST more
frequently. We note that multiple objectives exist for the lead
laboratories and it is unclear whether technical assistance will
receive adequate attention. In addition, since each lead
laboratory is involved in developing some OST technologies, there
is some question regarding their ability and willingness to
support and assist technologies developed by other laboratories or
organizations.
EM has not implemented our recommendation that experts from OST be
required to participate in sites' technology selection processes.
OST's focus areas have provided technical assistance for some
technology decisions at DOE's sites but have not been routinely
involved in all such decisions. For example, the subsurface
contaminants focus area participates with the Office of
Environmental Restoration in providing some DOE sites with
consultations on groundwater and soil cleanups, and the
deactivation and decommissioning focus area is participating in
several value engineering studies with sites. According to an OST
official, the radioactive tank waste focus area, assisted by the
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, has given beneficial
technical assistance and advice to several key decisions for
privatization projects at Hanford and Oak Ridge. In privatization
projects, DOE uses fixed- price contracts, and vendors are
responsible for identifying the technologies that they plan to
use. Technical assistance can help sites develop performance
specifications for the contracts, according to the Acting Deputy
Assistant Secretary for OST.
The Acting Assistant Secretary for EM told us that he believes a
policy on requiring OST's involvement in technical decisions for
sites would not be as useful as other efforts, such as the ASTD
program and integration teams that are studying waste problems
common to several sites and trying to develop integrated responses
to the problems. We believe that while
GAO/T-RCED-99-190 Page 8
technical assistance to sites may be increased by these activities
and by additional expertise in the focus areas, technical
assistance is not consistently being used to ensure that sites'
decisions are based on well- informed consideration of the full
range of available technology alternatives. During our 1998
review, we found that sites infrequently sought technical
assistance from OST and its focus areas. In addition, ASTD and the
integration teams have dealt only with a relatively small number
of innovative technologies. As a result, DOE needs to do more to
ensure that OST's technical assistance role is reinforced and made
more routine.
Process Is Needed to Ensure the Quality of Deployment Data
Our 1998 report found that OST's deployment data were of poor
quality. Specifically, we found that, for deployment instances
claimed from the start of the program through January 1998, 38
percent should not have been counted as deployments. The most
common type of error we found was counting technology
demonstrations that did not result in cleanup progress as
deployments. OST's focus areas are responsible for obtaining
information about the use of OST- developed technologies at field
sites and for inputting the data into a central database. While
our review was under way, OST began to verify its deployment data
for fiscal year 1997. We recommended that OST verify the accuracy
of future deployment data and label the earlier data that had not
been verified as an estimate.
Since our review, OST has completed a verification effort for
deployments that occurred in fiscal years 1997 and 1998, and DOE's
February 1999 report on the deployment of innovative technology
indicated that data from earlier years had not been verified. OST
verified its data through a Technology Achievements Study, which
used structured interviews with DOE field sites and technology
vendors to identify and obtain information about the deployments
at cleanup sites. OST corrected the errors found by the Technology
Achievements Study prior to publishing the deployment report.
OST's verification of fiscal year 1998 data found that only about
half of the deployments were correct as listed in the database.
Specifically, 18 percent of the deployments claimed should not
have been counted as deployments (compared with the 38 percent
that we found), and 43 deployments had been omitted from the
database. Other errors included deployments that were recorded in
the wrong year or that required major changes to the information
provided.
GAO/T-RCED-99-190 Page 9
Several actions were taken during 1998 to improve the quality of
the data. In August 1998, OST issued a definition of deployment
for its focus areas to use in gathering and inputting deployment
data. The definition emphasizes that a deployment occurs only if
the use of the technology furthers site cleanup goals. OST also
has site officials check deployment information that focus areas
have entered into OST's database. This step occurs prior to
verification through the Technology Achievements Study. In
addition, beginning in 1998, focus areas have been required to
fill out deployment fact sheets about each claimed deployment.
This requirement may help focus areas to improve their knowledge
about deployments and avoid such errors as the reporting of
deployments in the wrong year or wrong location because the fact
sheets require specific information about the site and project
where the technology was used and the identification of end users.
OST officials told us that they plan to continue the Technology
Achievements Study in fiscal year 1999 but have not decided if
this approach will be followed in the future. OST is hiring
consultants to conduct a one- time independent check of deployment
data for fiscal year 1998, study reasons for the poor quality of
the data, and provide advice on ways of improving data quality.
If, as a result of this study, OST develops and systematically
implements an approach for ensuring the accuracy of its data, the
quality of deployment data may improve.
Vendor Information Is Generally Available for OST- Developed
Technologies
Private vendor companies generally provide the innovative
technologies that are selected for use at DOE sites. Therefore, it
is important that DOE's field and contractor personnel have access
to information about the vendors for OST- developed technologies.
OST's database, accessible to DOE site personnel and the public,
includes information on vendors. We reviewed vendor information in
the database for the 171 technologies that OST had completed as of
March 1999. Thirty- three of the completed technologies were not
commercially available, leaving 138 technologies that should have
information for contacting vendors. For 122 of the 138 completed,
commercially- available technologies (88 percent), OST's database
included the basic information that site personnel would need to
contact a vendor namely, the company's name, a contact name, and a
phone number. 9 According to OST officials, if the necessary
information is not in the database, site personnel can contact
staff in OST's focus areas to obtain vendor information. We called
focus area staff about 3 of the 16 completed technologies that
lacked information for contacting vendors in
9 Some of the listings lacked other information, such as the
company's street address or fax number.
GAO/T-RCED-99-190 Page 10
the database. The focus area staff provided three vendor contacts
for two of these technologies and told us that the third
technology is not currently commercially available. We then
attempted to contact the three vendors with the information that
the focus areas provided for the other two technologies. For one
of the vendor contacts, the area code provided by the focus area
was out- of- date. However, we were able to contact the three
companies and confirmed that they are current vendors of the
technologies.
OST officials told us that they plan to improve the vendor
information in the database. First, OST plans to change its
database so that the field for vendor information must be
completed by focus area staff when they are preparing deployment
fact sheets. If the vendor information is not complete, the focus
area will not receive credit for the deployment. Second, the
Technology Achievements Study obtains vendor information during
its surveys that OST plans to put into its database. According to
OST officials, vendor information changes frequently because
companies may sell their patents, go out of business, relocate, or
change the trade name of the technology. The manager of the
Technology Achievements Study estimates that each year, 10 to 20
percent of the vendors may have some type of information change
including new addresses or area codes and new contact points due
to staff turnover or company mergers. If OST implements these two
planned actions, it will have greater confidence that its
information on vendors is complete and current.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I would be pleased
to respond to any questions the Subcommittee may have.
(141302) GAO/T-RCED-99-190 Page 11
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report and
testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be
sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money
order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary.
VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for
100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted
25 percent.
Orders by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013
or visit: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U. S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC
Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512- 6000 or by using
fax number (202) 512- 6061, or TDD (202) 512- 2537.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a
touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how
to obtain these lists.
For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send
an e- mail message with "info" in the body to:
info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:
http:// www. gao. gov
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548-
0001
Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested Bulk Rate
Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. G100
*** End of document. ***