DOE OSTI2015
Current methods for structuring nuclear waste management, disposal, and remediation decisions are subject to three major limitations. First, they are based on a series of extraordinarily conservative assumptions. The dominant way of thinking is that, for example, conservative models yield better, safer decisions. Second, they lack methods to meaningfully address and incorporate the 'human dimension'. The dominant way of thinking is that the current approach is sufficient to bring together the values and interests of both internal and external stakeholders in making a decision. And third, they lack a formal method through which both internal and external stakeholders are encouraged collectively to 'think through' complex problems that contain multiple competing objectives so that wise, socially acceptable, and scientifically-defensible decisions are made. To overcome these limitations, a paradigm shift is needed towards a holistic, integrated approach to structure nuclear waste management, disposal and remediation decisions. The first requirement of this paradigm shift is the realization and recognition that the problems faced are decision problems, and that there is a formal theory of decision analysis that can, and should, be used to support finding the best solutions. Decision analysis, very simply, is formalized common sense. The reason it is needed for complex problems is that there are too many moving parts (variables) for humans to manage with out the formalism. Decision analysis leads to addressing problem solving using a combination of a science-based model and a costs/values model. Expectation ('realism') and uncertainty are addressed in the science-based models, whereas stakeholder values, preferences, and desires are addressed when modeling costs and value judgments. Science-based modeling tools have been developed, improved, and used since the current regulatory setting was introduced about 30 years ago. However, modeling of costs and value judgments has not often been addressed using any formal approach, despite the openings that exist in regulations (e.g., CERCLA's modifying criteria and the concept of 'as low as reasonably achievable' referenced in DOE Orders). A discussion of the need and rationale for this paradigm shift is presented, followed by a description of the technical basics of this approach to decision modeling, and ending with an explanation of the steps that are taken in this approach to structured decision-making. A software framework program called Guided Interactive Statistical Decision Tools (GiSdT - pronounced 'gist') is introduced that supports this paradigm shift. (authors)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗