Application of Data Quality Objectives in Decommissioning Plans
- N.E. Research, Washington D.C. (United States)
The Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) are applicable and relevant in the design of measurements that provide data for good, effective decision-making. The DQOs provide criteria for the design of measurements and provide a target for assessing the level of data quality that is considered acceptable for effective decision-making. Such targets in the design of measurements help eliminate the acquisition of unnecessary, duplicative or overly precise data. They help provide more efficient use of limited measurement resources. With the application of DQOs, D and D program decisions are identified, DQOs are established, and measurements are designed to provide data that meet the DQOs for each decision point. Since the Historical Site Assessment (HSA), Scoping, Characterization, and Remedial Action Surveys provide data and information to all D and D program decision-making, an integrated approach should be taken where all input requirements are considered, in the design of each survey. The decision points and their linkages form a network of decisions referred to as a decision framework. Since distinct D and D program functions are linked by their decisions, programs proceed through the decision framework, in a uniform fashion, to one endpoint, the decision to release the site. The decision to release the site is based on the ability to pass the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM). Therefore, D and D planning has a primary aim, to integrate D and D program efforts in a manner that will allow D and D decision-making to reach one end point, effective MARSSIM decision-making. The Decision Framework is best represented, schematically, by a decision tree. The decision tree is based on 3- decision points and represents a decision in each of the Remediation, Dose Assessment and MARSSIM program functions. The decisions address the extent of excavation, dose modeling approach, and sampling for the MARSSIM Final Status Survey (FSS). The simplified decision rule established for each decision point relies on the questions: deep excavation or not; site-specific modeling or not; and high number of samples or not. For these decision rules, the basic outcomes are yes or no to the questions. As decision-makers proceed through the decision tree, there are 8 different paths available based on the theoretical relationship 2N, where N=3. All the paths lead to the one-end point, MARSSIM decision-making. Data and information from pre-release surveys provide input to each decision (although not illustrated in the decision tree schematic). Here MARSSIM represents a legitimate D and D program with decision-making functions. Since D and D decisions are connected to MARSSIM decisions, as illustrated in the decision tree, D and D decision-making can be captured in the MARSSIM context and the decision tree included in the MARSSIM report. These weighted options were selected because they represent 3-alternate plans (strategies) that could be implemented with equivalent total resources (costs). Hypothetical costing for each D and D program function is indicated at each section of the paths in terms of normalized values 10 and 1, in arbitrary units. Option 1 describes a path where Deep Excavation, Site specific Modeling, and a Low Number of Samples for the FSS are the bases. Option 2 describes a path where Deep Excavation, Screening Values, and a High Number of Samples are the bases. Option 3 utilizes Shallow Excavation, Site-specific Modeling, and a High Number of Samples in the FSS design. Since the 3-options are equivalent in costs, the selection of the best D and D option or MARSSIM Plan for the site could be determined by other factors such as Waste Management, Health and Safety, or Regulatory Compliance. For example, a site with Health and Safety issues may want to utilize Option 3, so that cleanup worker exposure is minimized during excavation. A small site, that has limited technical support, may want to use tables of screening values for dose assessments, and therefore Option 2 may be an appropriate MARSSIM Plan. Another example would be a case for the use of Option 1 where the D and D manager may want to minimize difficulties with getting pass MARSSIM tests. By conducting extensive cleanup and calculating more realistic (less conservative) dose values, more flexibility in MARSSIM is obtained. for any decision framework, there are a number of reasonable paths to be considered in D and D decision-making and that these paths can be viewed as a family of MARSSIM Plans. Optimization of MARSSIM decision-making can occur by selecting, from this family of MARSSIM Plans, the most appropriate plan for the conditions at a specific site. This approach represents a more comprehensive evaluation of D and D options and strategies that regulators and stakeholders would most likely appreciate in the MARSSIM Final Report. In an era of information management, it would be prudent to take advantage of opportunities offered by the application of DQOs and the utilization of its decision-framework. The example utilized of a decision framework, is an overly simplified (N=3) model and is presented for illustrative purposes. A typical D and D project would have many more decision points to consider in formulating the decision framework and its decision tree, and the use of high level computing would be needed.
- Research Organization:
- American Nuclear Society, 555 North Kensington Avenue, La Grange Park, Illinois 60526 (United States)
- OSTI ID:
- 21144189
- Resource Relation:
- Conference: DD and R 2007: ANS Topical Meeting on Decommissioning, Decontamination, and Reutilization 2007, Chattanooga, TN (United States), 16-19 Sep 2007; Other Information: Country of input: France; 4 refs; Related Information: In: Proceedings of the 2007 ANS Topical Meeting on Decommissioning, Decontamination, and Reutilization - DD and R 2007, 336 pages.
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Type A verification report for the high flux beam reactor stack and grounds, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York
Phase 1 Final status survey plan for the West Valley demonstration project.