Branch technical position on the use of expert elicitation in the high-level radioactive waste program

Kotra, Janet; Lee, M.P.; Eisenberg, Norman A.; DeWispelare, Aaron R.

doi:10.2172/414310

Cited by 37 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is often considered the best way to develop credible estimates when data are sparse or lacking, or when projections are sought for future conditions that are different from past conditions [34][35]. Several formal protocols for conducting elicitations have been developed [36] and a rich literature provides guidance on question design, the importance of clarity in what is being asked, how to minimize the effects of motivational and cognitive biases, and the importance of providing feedback and opportunities to update assessments [33,[37][38].…”

Section: Expert Elicitation Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

Expert elicitation survey on future wind energy costs

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Expert Elicitation Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

Expert elicitation survey on future wind energy costs

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Expert judgment has proven to be a particularly useful tool for evaluating probabilistic estimates for rare or poorly understood phenomena and for forecasting future events [Geomatrix, 1997[Geomatrix, , 1998Kotra et al, 1996;Morgan and Henrion, 1995;Meyer and Booker, 1991;Keeney and 6-103 Raiffa, 1993;Raiffa, 1968]. These topics have significant uncertainty that commonly cannot be reduced by conventional means of data gathering.…”

Section: The Use Of Expert Elicitation In Scenario Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compliance Assessment Document for the Transuranic Wastes in the Greater Confinement Disposal Boreholes at the Nevada Test Site, Volume 2: Performance Assessment

Cochran¹,

Beyeler²,

Brosseau³

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intermediate depth disposal operations were conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) at the DOE's Nevada Test Site (NTS) from 1984 through 1989. These operations emplaced highspecific activity low-level wastes (LLW) and limited quantities of classified, "special case" transuranic (TRU) wastes in 37 m (120-ft) deep, 3 m (10 ft) diameter Greater Confinement Disposal (GCD) boreholes.Four boreholes contain about 60,000 kg (132,000 lb.) of classified TRU waste packages, containing less than 330 curies of Plutonium-239. All of the TRU wastes emplaced in the GCD boreholes are classified for national security reasons and cannot be disposed of in the DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 40 CFR 191 defines the requirements for protection of human health from disposed TRU wastes. This EPA standard sets a number of requirements, including probabilistic limits on the cumulative releases of radionuclides to the accessible environment for 10,000 years. This report presents the performance assessment (PA) that has been conducted to determine if disposal of TRU waste in the GCD boreholes complies with the EPA's 40 CFR 191 requirements.Sandia National Laboratories completed this PA using all available information and an Iterative PA Methodology, which focused work on uncertainty reduction in a cost-effective fashion that does not overestimate system performance and assured defensibility. The simplicity of the conceptual models of the GCD disposal system allowed them to be implemented in Microsoft ® Visual Basic™ macros in an Access™ database. This PA model is built from a mathematical expression for mass conservation that includes the operation of a number of transport processes, including dissolution, precipitation, reversible chemical sorption onto soil, advection, diffusion, dispersion, radioactive decay and ingrowth, plant uptake, and bioturbation. The mathematical model and implementing code was used to calculate a complementary cumulative distribution function of integrated normalized release to the accessible environment for 10,000 years and probability distributions of dose based on two exposure conditions for the 1,000 year individual protection requirements.The primary conclusions of this PA are that the disposal of TRU wastes in the GCD boreholes will, at most, result in minuscule doses to individuals, and that the GCD disposal system easily meets the EPA's 1985, 40 CFR 191 requirements for disposal of TRU waste. Further, there is a strong, reasonable expectation that actual system performance will be better than what is simulated in this PA.vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

show abstract

“…3. Expert elicitations should be conducted and documented in accordance with the guidance in NUREG-1562 (Kotra et al 1996) or other acceptable approaches. (NRC 1999a, Sections 4.1.1 and 4.4.1)…”

Section: Nrc Irsr Criteria For the Enfe Ktimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(NRC 1999b, Section 4.0) 2. Expert elicitations, when used, should be conducted and documented in accordance with the guidance provided in NUREG-1563 (Kotra et al 1996) …”

Section: General Acceptance Criteria For All Subissuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

EBS Radionuclide Transport Abstraction

Schreiner¹

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Branch technical position on the use of expert elicitation in the high-level radioactive waste program

Cited by 37 publications

References 13 publications

Expert elicitation survey on future wind energy costs

Expert elicitation survey on future wind energy costs

Compliance Assessment Document for the Transuranic Wastes in the Greater Confinement Disposal Boreholes at the Nevada Test Site, Volume 2: Performance Assessment

EBS Radionuclide Transport Abstraction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About