Skip to main content
Log in

Prioritizing R&D for the U.S. Department of Energy's Weapons Complex Clean-Up

  • Published:
Environmental Modeling & Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Prioritizing the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) targeted R&D program supporting weapons-complex clean-up has been problematic. Considering issues common to all R&D evaluation, linking R&D prioritization to clean-up project prioritization, the latter aligned with institutional goals, offers a pragmatic solution. This method is illustrated with results of a clean-up prioritization model of DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory site.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Status Report on Paths to Closure, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC (March 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  2. U.S. House of Representatives, Incinerating cash; The Department of Energy's failure to develop and use innovative technologies to clean up the nuclear waste legacy, Staff report prepared for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Washington, DC (October 2000).

  3. National Research Council, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications, Quantitative Assessments of the Physical and Mathematical Sciences; A Summary of Lessons Learned (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  4. C. Wagner and A. Flanagan, Workshop on the metrics of fundamental science: A summary, PM-379-OSTP, RAND, Washington, DC (February 1995).

  5. R.L. Kirschstein and A.C. Petersen, Assessing Fundamental Science, Memorandum for Members of the Subcommittee on Research of the Committee on Fundamental Science, National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health, Washington, DC (11 December, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  6. National Research Council, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications, Research Restructuring and Assessment. Can We Apply the Corporate Experience to Government Agencies? (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  7. A.N. Link, ed., Evaluating Public Sector Research and Development (Praeger, Westport, CT, 1996).

  8. Z. Griliches, Productivity, R&D, and the data constraint, Am. Econ. Rev. 84 (1994) 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  9. T.P. Mamuneas and M.I. Nadiri, Public R&D policies and cost behavior of the US manufacturing industries, J. Pub. Econ. 63 (1996) 57–81.

    Google Scholar 

  10. National Research Council, Committee on Mixed Wastes, Board on Radioactive Waste Management, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, The State of Development ofWaste Forms for Mixed Wastes. U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  11. D.W. Jones, K.S. Redus and D.J. Bjornstad, The consequences of alternative environmental management goals: A non-linear programming analysis of nuclear weapons legacy clean-up at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Environmental Modeling & Assessment 5 (2000) 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  12. C.L. Dümmer, D.J. Bjornstad and D.W. Jones, Opportunities for regulatory reform for DOE Cleanup, JIEE 2000/03, Joint Institute for Energy and Environment, Knoxville, TN (26 April, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jones, D.W., Bjornstad, D.J. & Redus, K.S. Prioritizing R&D for the U.S. Department of Energy's Weapons Complex Clean-Up. Environmental Modeling & Assessment 6, 209–215 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011918117779

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011918117779

Navigation