English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Pollution Prevention (EM-77) created a successful internally competed program to fund innovative projects based on projected returns. This is called the Return-on-Investment (ROI) program. EM-77 conducted a successful ROI pilot, developed and implemented sound management practices, and successfully transferred the program to several Operations Offices. Over the past 4 years sites have completed 262 ROI projects (costing $18.8 million) with claimed first-year savings of $88 million and claimed life cycle savings exceeding $300 million. EM-77 requested that Oak Ridge National Laboratory perform an independent evaluation of the site-led, DOE-HQ-funded pollution prevention (P2) ROI program to assist the Department in determining whether claimed savings are real. The approach for conducting this evaluation was to analyze a sample of P2 projects to identify actual project cost savings and other actual benefits--e.g., amount of waste avoided. To determine the projects for review, EM-77 provided a list of EM-funded projects at two Operations Offices: Oak Ridge and Richland. Sixteen projects (eight from each Operations Office) were selected at random from this list for review. Project documentation was requested from the sites, and this was followed by face-to-face interviews with project personnel. of the 16 projects selected at random, two are still awaiting implementation, and no project interview was conducted for one project. Because the purpose of this study was to review projects after they have been implemented, the two uncompleted projects were eliminated from further consideration. The remainder of this report addresses the 13 completed projects for which we received documentation and performed interviews with project personnel. Both Oak Ridge and Richland staff pointed out that because of the selection approach used, this study did not review the most successful projects at their sites

Assessment of Cost Savings of DOE's Return-on-Investment Program