Methodology for the Analysis and Selection of Alternative for the Disposition of211 Surplus Plutonium

摘要

The Department of Energy (DOE) - Office of Fissile Materials Disposition (OFMD)211u001ehas announced a Record of Decision (ROD) selecting alternatives for disposition 211u001eof surplus plutonium. A major objective of this decision was to further U.S. 211u001eefforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Other concerns that were 211u001eaddressed include economic, technical, institutional, schedule, environmental, 211u001eand health and safety issues. The technical, environmental, and nonproliferation 211u001eanalyses supporting the ROD are documented in three DOE reports (DOE-TSR 96, DOE-211u001ePEIS 96, and DOE-NN 97, respectively). At the request of OFMD, a team of analysts 211u001efrom the Amarillo National Resource Center for Plutonium (ANRCP) provided an 211u001eindependent evaluation of the alternatives for plutonium that were considered 211u001eduring the evaluation effort. This report outlines the methodology used by the 211u001eANRCP team. This methodology, referred to as multiattribute utility theory (MAU), 211u001eprovides a structure for assembling results of detailed technical, economic, 211u001eschedule, environment, and nonproliferation analyses for OFMD, DOE policy makers, 211u001eother stakeholders, and the general public in a systematic way. The MAU 211u001emethodology has been supported for use in similar situations by the National 211u001eResearch Council, an agency of the National Academy of Sciences. It is important 211u001eto emphasize that the MAU process does not lead to a computerized model that 211u001eactually determines the decision for a complex problem. MAU is a management tool 211u001ethat is one component, albeit a key component, of a decision process. We 211u001esubscribe to the philosophy that the result of using models should be insights, 211u001enot numbers. The MAU approach consists of four steps: (1) identification of 211u001ealternatives, objectives, and performance measures, (2) estimation of the 211u001eperformance of the alternatives with respect to the objectives, (3) development 211u001eof value functions and weights for the objectives, and (4) evaluation of the 211u001ealternatives and sensitivity analysis.