Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Hazard Avoidance”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

63 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

A System for Standardizing and Combining U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Emissions and Waste Inventory Data

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) provides databases that agglomerate data provided by companies or states reporting emissions, releases, wastes generated, and other activities to meet statutory requirements. These databases, often referred to as inventories, can be used for a wide variety of environmental reporting and modeling purposes to characterize conditions in the United States. Yet, users are often challenged to find, retrieve, and interpret these data due to the unique schemes employed for data management, which could result in erroneous estimations or double-counting of emissions. To address these challenges, a system called Standardized Emission and Waste Inventories (StEWI) has been created. The system consists of four python modules that provide rapid access to USEPA inventory data in standard formats and permit filtering and combination of these inventory data. When accessed through StEWI, reported emissions of carbon dioxide to air and ammonia to water are reduced approximately two- and four-fold, respectively, to avoid duplicate reporting. StEWI will greatly facilitate the use of USEPA inventory data in chemical release and exposure modeling and life cycle assessment tools, among other things. To date, StEWI has been used to build the recent USEEIO model and the baseline electricity life cycle inventory database for the Federal LCA Commons.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2024

Evaluating offshore legacy wells for geologic carbon storage: A case study from the Galveston and Brazos areas in the Gulf of Mexico

In this article, federal offshore waters in the Gulf of Mexico are of interest for large-scale geologic carbon storage (GCS). However, more than 80,000 offshore oil and gas wells exist in the region, which could impact the integrity of sealing intervals. In this study, we propose a screening methodology for ranking offshore legacy wells based on the challenge they may present to GCS. The methodology relies on the review of well regulatory records to 1) identify leakage pathways and assess the potential hazards that wells pose to planned GCS operations, 2) evaluate well features that impact the accessibility of wells to determine the feasibility of potential corrective actions, and 3) rank wells based on the overall challenge they may pose for GCS. We demonstrate our framework by evaluating the construction and abandonment of 156 wells across eight areas of interest (AOIs) in shallow federal waters along the Texas Gulf Coast. The majority (99.3 %) of wells considered were constructed and plugged in a manner that did not isolate prospective GCS targets in the Upper and Lower Miocene formations and may potentially require a challenging or uncertain corrective action prior to GCS. Dataset trends suggest that the observed well construction and plugging designs may be common in shallow offshore federal waters along the Texas Gulf Coast. Consequently, operators pursuing offshore GCS projects in the region may consider selecting areas that avoid challenging wells or performing robust evaluations of legacy well leakage risks to plan corrective action prior to CO 2 injection.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Stakeholder-guided holistic, Adaptive Framework for enhancing community Energy Resilience (SAFER) (Final Technical Report)

The Stakeholder-guided holistic, Adaptive Framework for enhancing community Energy Resilience (SAFER) project advances resilience science and engineering by addressing challenges in rural Kansas communities where aging infrastructure, extreme weather, and socioeconomic disparities heighten vulnerability to energy disruptions. Traditional approaches often focus on technical performance while overlooking community concerns and priorities. SAFER responds by integrating community perspectives with advanced analytical frameworks to create a holistic model for measuring and improving resilience. Project objectives included developing novel resilience metrics, advancing modeling frameworks that capture interdependencies across infrastructures, and embedding community-centric indicators directly into planning processes for distributed energy resources. The key technical innovations included the creation of self-organizing map (SOM)-based indices for objective resilience quantification, hetero-functional graph theory (HFGT) models linking power, water, transportation, and community assets, and graph neural network (GNN) tools for identifying critical nodes in complex systems. Community-centric energy planning was demonstrated through optimal siting and sizing of (photovoltaic) PV and battery storage, ensuring resilience enhancements also addressed energy burden and energy insecurity. SAFER engaged community partners in Dodge City and Ford County through surveys, focus groups, and workshops, generating more than 600 responses that established baseline measures of energy burden, financial insecurity, and willingness-to-pay to avoid outages. This data, organized in terms of a community capitals framework, informed the development of weighted reliability indices that better reflect community costs than traditional utility metrics. SAFER’s GNN-based critical node identification framework identified expert-labelled critical nodes with over 99% accuracy, while also uncovering additional functionalities essential for proactive resilience planning. The project’s models demonstrated that optimal PV and storage deployment could improve resilience indices by over 11 percent, with dispatch strategies further enhancing outcomes, confirming both the technical effectiveness and economic feasibility of these approaches. Through its combined emphasis on rigorous modeling, community-focused planning, and community engagement, SAFER advances the state of resilience research while delivering direct benefits to rural communities. The project provides tools, guidelines, and resilience heatmaps that help utilities, local governments, and residents better anticipate disruptions, prioritize investments, and strengthen the capacity to withstand and recover from energy-related hazards. Furthermore, the developed HFG and GNN frameworks are designed for transferability, allowing them to be adapted for resilience planning in other communities with minimal retraining. This inductive learning capability provides a scalable pathway to extend the SAFER project’s impact. Thus, creating a foundation for a nationally applicable model of infrastructure resilience. Additionally, the HFG can also be extended to include other FEMA community lifelines.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Air quality and health impacts of the 2020 wildfires in California

Abstract Background Wildfires in 2020 ravaged California to set the annual record of area burned to date. Clusters of wildfires in Northern California surrounded the Bay Area covering the skies with smoke and raising the air pollutant concentrations to hazardous levels. This study uses the Fire Inventory from the National Center for Atmospheric Research database and the Community Multiscale Air Quality model to estimate the effects of wildfire emissions on air quality during the period from August 16 to October 28 of 2020. In addition, low-cost sensor data for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) from the PurpleAir network is used to enhance modeled PM 2.5 concentrations. The resulting impacts on ozone and PM 2.5 are used to quantify the health impacts caused by wildfires using the Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program – Community Edition. Results Wildfire activity significantly increased direct PM 2.5 emissions and emissions of PM 2.5 and ozone precursors. Direct PM 2.5 emissions surged up to 38 times compared to an average day. Modeling results indicated that wildfires alone led to a rise in ozone daily maximum 8-h average by up to 10 ppb and exceeded PM 2.5 air quality standards in numerous locations by up to 10 times. While modeled PM 2.5 concentrations were lower than measurements, correcting these with PurpleAir data improved the accuracy. The correction using PurpleAir data increased estimates of wildfire-induced mortality due to PM 2.5 exposure by up to 16%. Conclusions The increased hospital admissions and premature mortality attributed to wildfires were found to be comparable to the health impacts avoided by strategies aimed at meeting ozone and PM2.5 air quality standards. This suggests that widespread wildfire emissions can negate years of efforts dedicated to controlling air pollution. The integration of low-cost sensor data proved invaluable in refining the estimates of health impacts from PM2.5 resulting from wildfires.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Model-based, in-situ, non-destructive qualification and certification of parts made by autonomous additive manufacturing

To address the significant productivity challenges associated with the qualification and certification (Q&C) tasks of additively manufactured (AM) parts, which have traditionally relied on rigorous post‐build inspection and testing, we propose an integrated framework that combines model‐based qualification and certification (MBQ&C) with autonomous additive manufacturing (AAM). MBQ&C employs high‐fidelity predictive models, developed within the Integrated Computational Materials Engineering (ICME) paradigm, to simulate process–structure–property–performance relationships for assessing a part’s fitness for use. Since predictive models are commonly machine learning (ML)-based or reduced-order surrogates of validated physics models, they run efficiently, enabling timely inference. In parallel, the self-driving AAM utilises ML-based adaptive, closed‐loop control strategies to avoid, mitigate, or repair defects and anomalies during fabrication, thereby increasing the likelihood of producing acceptable parts. A key feature of the combined AAM-MBQ&C framework is that predictive models explicitly incorporate defects or anomalies that persist after the build, using instance-specific data captured via in-situ sensing. This customisation enables a build‐specific assessment of fitness for use, rather than relying on nominal or generic parameters. Such individualised evaluation provides a robust basis for Q&C-related acceptance decisions relating to each build. Additionally, the rapid solution capabilities of ML or reduced-order models enable the determination of a part’s suitability for service shortly after build completion. As the framework matures, it has the potential to substantially reduce reliance on conventional point‐design approaches—such as time‐consuming post‐build computed tomography scanning and costly destructive testing. Thus, the AAM-MBQ&C framework represents a transformative, scalable strategy for quality assurance of AM components, as parts produced within a stable, validated, and certified envelope can be certified with reduced testing. Key benefits include: (1) significant gains in Q&C productivity through efficient, model-centric assessment; (2) performance-based classification of defects into critical and non-critical categories; (3) the ability to predict potential deviations in the performance of parts affected by real-time, adaptive process control interventions relative to those produced under a certified process, and (4) the enabling of virtual Q&C for service environments that are difficult, hazardous, or impractical to access or reproduce experimentally. Collectively, these capabilities strengthen the business case for AM, particularly for high‐consequence and mission‐critical applications. Finally, although this work focuses on powder-based AM, the proposed techniques could be extended to AM processes employing alternative feedstock forms.

Gunasegaram, Dayalan↗
DOE OSTI2020

Physics and technology considerations for the deuterium–tritium fuel cycle and conditions for tritium fuel self sufficiency

The tritium aspects of the DT fuel cycle embody some of the most challenging feasibility and attractiveness issues in the development of fusion systems. The review and analyses in this paper provide important information to understand and quantify these challenges and to define the phase space of plasma physics and fusion technology parameters and features that must guide a serious R&D in the world fusion program. We focus in particular on components, issues and R&D necessary to satisfy three 'principal requirements': (1) achieving tritium self-sufficiency within the fusion system, (2) providing a tritium inventory for the initial start-up of a fusion facility, and (3) managing the safety and biological hazards of tritium. A primary conclusion is that the physics and technology state-of-the-art will not enable DEMO and future power plants to satisfy these principal requirements. We quantify goals and define specific areas and ideas for physics and technology R&D to meet these requirements. A powerful fuel cycle dynamics model was developed to calculate time-dependent tritium inventories and flow rates in all parts and components of the fuel cycle for different ranges of parameters and physics and technology conditions. Dynamics modeling analyses show that the key parameters affecting tritium inventories, tritium start-up inventory, and tritium self-sufficiency are the tritium burn fraction in the plasma (f b ), fueling efficiency (η f ), processing time of plasma exhaust in the inner fuel cycle (t p ), reactor availability factor (AF), reserve time (tr) which determines the reserve tritium inventory needed in the storage system in order to keep the plant operational for time t r in case of any malfunction of any part of the tritium processing system, and the doubling time (t d ). Results show that η f f b > 2% and processing time of 1–4 h are required to achieve tritium self-sufficiency with reasonable confidence. For η f f b = 2% and processing time of 4 h, the tritium start-up inventory required for a 3 GW fusion reactor is ~11 kg, while it is <5 kg if η f f b = 5% and the processing time is 1 h. To achieve these stringent requirements, a serious R&D program in physics and technology is necessary. The EU-DEMO direct internal recycling concept that carries fuel directly from the plasma exhaust gas to the fueling systems without going through the isotope separation system reduces the overall processing time and tritium inventories and has positive effects on the required tritium breeding ratio (TBR R ). A significant finding is the strong dependence of tritium self-sufficiency on the reactor availability factor. Simulations show that tritium self-sufficiency is: impossible if AF < 10% for any η f f b , possible if AF > 30% and 1% ≤ η f f b ≤ 2%, and achievable with reasonable confidence if AF > 50% and η f f b > 2%. These results are of particular concern in light of the low availability factor predicted for the near-term plasma-based experimental facilities (e.g. FNSF, VNS, CTF), and can have repercussions on tritium economy in DEMO reactors as well, unless significant advancements in RAMI are made. There is a linear dependency between the tritium start-up inventory and the fusion power. The required tritium start-up inventory for a fusion facility of 100 MW fusion power is as small as 1 kg. Since fusion power plants will have large powers for better economics, it is important to maintain a 'reserve' tritium inventory in the tritium storage system to continue to fuel the plasma and avoid plant shutdown in case of malfunctions of some parts of the tritium processing lines. But our results show that a reserve time as short as 24 h leads to unacceptable reserve and start-up inventory requirements. Therefore, high reliability and fast maintainability of all components in the fuel cycle are necessary in order to avoid the need for storing reserve tritium inventory sufficient for continued fusion facility operation for more than a few hours. The physics aspects of plasma fueling, tritium burn fraction, and particle and power exhaust are highly interrelated and complex, and predictions for DEMO and power reactors are highly uncertain because of lack of experiments with burning plasma. Fueling by pellet injection on the high field side of tokamak has evolved to be the preferred method to fuel a burning plasma. Extrapolation from the DIII-D penetration scaling shows fueling efficiency expected in DEMO to be <25%, but such extrapolations are highly uncertain. The fueling efficiency of gas in a reactor relevant regime is expected to be extremely poor and not very useful for getting tritium into the core plasma efficiently. Gas fueling will nonetheless be useful for feedback control of the divertor operating parameters. Extensive modeling has been carried out to predict burn fraction, fueling requirements, and fueling efficiency for ITER, DEMO, and beyond. The fueling rate required to operate Q = 10 ITER plasmas in order to provide the required core fueling, helium exhaust and radiative divertor plasma conditions for acceptable divertor power loads was calculated. If this fueling is performed with a 50–50 DT mix, the tritium burn fraction in ITER would be ~0.36%, which is too low to satisfy the self-sufficiency conditions derived from the dynamics modeling for fusion reactors. Extrapolation to DEMO using this approach would also yield similarly low burn fraction. Extensive analysis presented shows that specific features of edge neutral dynamics in ITER and fusion reactors, which are different from present experiments, open possibilities for optimization of tritium fueling and thus to improve the burn fraction. Using only tritium in pellet fueling of the plasma core, and only deuterium for edge density, divertor power load and ELM control results in significant increase of the burn fraction to 1.8–3.6%. These estimates are performed with physics models whose results cannot be fully validated for ITER and DEMO plasma conditions since these cannot be achieved in present tokamak experiments. Thus, several uncertainties remain regarding particle transport and scenario requirements in ITER and DEMO. The safety standard requirements for protection of the public and release guidelines for tritium have been reviewed. General safety approaches including minimizing tritium inventories, reducing tritium permeation through materials, and decontaminating material for waste disposal have been suggested.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2024

An editorial to the Special Issue on “Severe climate Risks”

The history of this Special Issue (https://www.sciencedirect.com/special-issue/10JD7LNJNQ0) indirectly dates back to the early 1990s, when the signature of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change kicked-off an international political process based on one overarching and foundational principle: to avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” at the global level. More than three decades later, such a principle remains central, though complementary aims made their way through the climate negotiation process, such as the importance of ensuring equity and justice, to give just one example here. Scientific knowledge also considerably progressed and we know more about the range of risks that climate change imposes and will continue to impose to the biosphere and humankind, worldwide and at all territorial levels. It is also clear that societal responses to these risks —“climate adaptation” as we know it— are increasingly happening, but definitely not at the pace of climate risk trends (Berrang-Ford et al., 2021, Erisken et al., 2021, Olazabal and Ruiz De Gopegui, 2021, Magnan et al., 2023a, Reckien et al., 2023, UNEP, 2023). As a result, concerns have emerged over the recent years in both the scientific and policy arenas around the idea that societies may not be able to address all climate risks, and that limits to adaptation and induced residual risks need to be considered more seriously. Such concerns further highlight the continuing importance of the imperative to minimise dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, at any scale. But what does “dangerous interference” mean? How can we decide that we are entering the “dangerous” space, compared to a broader range of climate risks that would qualify as problematic but not necessarily “dangerous”? Who should make such a decision? Which conditions drive risk severity over time, including in the future? And what would be the environmental, economic, social and cultural implications of prioritising some climate risks over others? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was a pioneer in addressing such questions through the development of the “Key Risks” framing that describes those climate risks having the potential to become dangerous or “severe” over the course of this century (Schellnhuber et al., 2006, Schneider et al., 2007, Oppenheimer et al., 2014, O’Neill et al., 2022). The Fifth and Sixth assessment cycles (AR5 and AR6) went a step further by identifying about 120 Key Risks across regions and sectors, and clustering them into 8 “Representative Key Risks” covering a range of geographical systems (low-lying coasts, and to terrestrial and ocean ecosystems), sectors (critical infrastructure, living standards, human health, food security, and water security) and human dimensions (peace and mobility) (Oppenheimer et al., 2014, O’Neill et al., 2022). This Special Issue was born of the efforts of a range of authors, during the development of the IPCC AR6 main Assessment Report between 2019 and 2022, to characterise Key Risks and Representative Key Risks, and advance knowledge on what shapes “severe climate risks” conceptually as well as in the real-world. The series of papers forming this Special Issue is not intended to cover the topic exhaustively, but rather to give readers an overview through the following narrative: defining “severe climate risks” is highly challenging (Magnan et al., 2023b), but knowledge is expanding on the driving climate hazards (Tebaldi et al., 2023) and their implications on geographical systems, sectors and human dimensions, using here food security (Mirzabaev et al., 2023), human mobility (Gilmore et al., 2024) and peace (Buhaug et al., 2023) as illustrative examples. The overall intention is to support especially decision-makers, whatever the scale or sector considered, in asking severity-driven questions to identify sector- and context-specific “priority” risks from climate change.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Proposed guidance for preparing and reviewing a molten salt non-power production or utilization facility application

Development of non-power molten salt reactors (MSRs) are under consideration to further establish an MSR experience base, support the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.43(e), and provide any additional analyses needed for development of a full-scale MSR. Guidance provided in this report is based on MSRs operating with liquid fuel (i.e., fuel dissolved within a molten salt). These reactors, unless owned by the DOE or DOD, will require licensing by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff. Standard review plan (SRP) guidance for large light water reactors (LWRs) is available in NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants; Light Water Reactor (LWR) Edition. However, NRC staff observed that NUREG-0800 is very cumbersome to apply to non-power reactors “because of the great differences in complexity and hazards between non-power reactors and nuclear power plants.” Therefore, a program to develop performance-based guidance applicable to non-power reactors was initiated. In 1996, NUREG-1537, Parts 1 and 2, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors, was published. Part 1, the format and content guide, suggests a uniform format for presenting information in non-power reactor applications that is acceptable to the NRC staff, but conformance with the format and content is not required. Part 2, the SRP, ensures the quality and uniformity of the staff review of an application. Unfortunately, the application guidelines and SRP do not provide adequate guidance for all advanced non-LWR technologies and applications. This discrepancy eventually led to the 2012 development of interim staff guidance (ISG) for NUREG-1537, which includes criteria for describing and reviewing aqueous homogeneous reactors (AHRs). Specifically, NUREG-1537 ISG, 2012 expanded the original document to address three areas: 1. updated criteria for heterogeneous non-power reactors, 2. criteria for licensing AHRs, and 3. criteria for licensing a Part 50-licensed isotope production facility. In 2015, the US Department of Energy (DOE) opted to build on the AHR NUREG-1537 ISG experience by performing a gap analysis of the guidance that would be used to license a non-power MSR. MSRs represent one of the advanced non-LWR technologies selected by DOE for development through a multiyear cost share award with Southern Company Services. Under this Advanced Reactor Concepts 2015 (DOE Advanced Reactor Concepts [ARC] 15) award program, the DOE tasked Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to evaluate the guidance changes that the NRC may need to consider when licensing an MSR non-power reactor. ORNL staff, with support from Boston Government Services, LLC, focused on five system-related chapters in NUREG-1537 that were considered most relevant to inform the effort that would be required for a non-power MSR applicant. ORNL documented this review in a technical report, ORNL/TM-2018/834, Proposed Guidance for Preparing and Reviewing Molten Salt Non-Power Reactor License Applications (NUREG-1537). The report was subsequently shared with industry and the NRC. The 2018 review was limited in scope, focusing on key system chapters based on the expected significance of each chapter relative to expected differences in addressing advanced non-LWR technologies, specifically non-power MSRs, compared with heterogeneously fueled non-power reactors. In the ORNL report, proposed generic adaptations were suggested for the following NUREG-1537 chapters: Chapter 4, “Reactor Description”; Chapter 5, “Reactor Coolant Systems”; Chapter 6, “Engineered Safety Features”; Chapter 9, “Auxiliary Systems”; Chapter 11, “Radiation Protection Program and Waste Management” The inclusion of Chapter 11 in the previous review effort was intended to provide guidance for categorizing the waste-handling process for an MSR operating with homogenous fuel. The introductions from Parts 1 and 2 of the 2012 NUREG-1537 ISG provide guidance for the application and review of production facilities. After a period of operation, non-power MSRs with homogenous fuel will include gaseous and soluble fission products. The gaseous fission products will be collected and held for decay in an off-gas system. There might also be an initiative to polish or filter the soluble fission products in the fuel salt by some mechanical or chemical means. The treatment and handling of fission products in the non-power MSR fuel salt and the description of this process in the safety analysis report (SAR) must be very precise to avoid the waste treatment facility being construed as a co-located special nuclear material (SNM) fuel cycle facility (see Section 2.3 of this report). Subsequent to the release of ORNL/TM-2018/834, NRC staff expressed a desire to continue the regulatory gap analysis that was begun in that report. This would provide additional clarity and information addressed in certain sections of the original report, while also providing new guidance on certain topics not addressed in the original report. This revision would benefit the NRC staff reviewing applications involving non-power MSR designs and would help developers understand how the NRC staff might approach the review of such applications. The focus of this report is to provide infrastructure support to the NRC staff for the regulatory review of non-power MSRs.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Stakeholder-Engaged Structured Decision Making for the Los Alamos Legacy Cleanup Mission - 20501

The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) environmental legacy cleanup program requires decisions to be made for environmental remediation, decommissioning and disposal or management of radioactive waste. This legacy cleanup program was established to address groundwater contamination, material disposal areas (MDAs) that have been used to dispose of radioactive and other waste material, and 'aggregate areas' that might produce radioactive or other chemical waste as a result of remediation activities. The LANL site is regulated for environmental concerns under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). However, some parts of LANL, such as material disposal area G (MDA G), have disposed of radioactive waste under DOE Order 435.1, and are subject to other regulations. For example, decommissioning the remote-handled TRU material stored in 33 shafts at MDA G falls under EPA's 40 CFR 191. Collectively, the regulations are all aimed in the same direction of finding the best solution, either through constructs such as 'as low as reasonably achievable' (ALARA), considering balancing factors as opposed to only cost and human health risk, and, under EPA regulations such as RCRA and NEPA, evaluating impact from all chemicals and both human health and ecological endpoints. Despite the basic goals and objectives of the regulations or their guidance, the main challenge is in their implementation. Arguably perhaps, but really in principle, all of these (and similar) regulations are asking for a decision analysis to be performed. Implementation challenges encountered have included lack of understanding of decision analysis in the industry, lack of effective stakeholder engagement in the decision analysis process, and lack of appreciation of the need to separate value judgments from science, the latter leading to developing conservative, or protective, science-based models. Conservative models lead to poor solutions, lack of effective stakeholder engagement leads to long drawn out protracted approaches to finding a solution (which also might never be found with this approach), and lack of understanding of decision analysis and Bayesian statistics causes poor models to be built, which creates unfortunate situations of 'garbage in, garbage out' becoming the basis for decision making. Stakeholder-engaged structured decision making (SDM) is an approach to solving problems that relies on the theory of decision science to involve stakeholders in the decision-making process. This approach incorporates stakeholder values using a scientifically rigorous methodology that separates value judgments from science in a way that helps avoid the pitfalls of biased, protective, or conservative modeling. This approach has its foundation in Keeney's 1992 treatise on value-focused thinking [1]. Keeney advocated a paradigm shift in decision making based on the idea that the standard way of thinking about decisions is backwards. The standard approach of focusing first on identifying alternatives rather than on articulating values results in a reactive approach with the emphasis on mechanics and fixed choices instead of the core values that have meaning to stakeholders. This paradigm shift effectively engages all stakeholders in the decision-making process while using a values focused thinking approach that can lead to the identification of decision opportunities and the creation of better alternatives. The intent is to be proactive and generate solutions that are related directly to values and objectives as identified by stakeholders. There are, perhaps, two overarching reasons why SDM can be used to benefit LANL's environmental legacy cleanup. Some of LANL's remaining waste management and environmental management problems are challenging and complex (for example, the Cr and RDX plumes, and MDAs) and while the traditional approach has, arguably, worked well for relatively simple risk-based problems, it cannot, or should not, be applied to more complex problems if the most effective and efficient solutions are desired. The second reason is cost. This has perhaps become more critical since publication of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that DoE's environmental liability is considered a high-risk concern for the nation [2]. The focus of SDM is on structuring solutions to decision risk problems by first addressing stakeholder and decision maker values and subsequently developing decision objectives and ways to measure those objectives, preference weighting across objectives, identifying decision alternatives that best achieve those values, and characterizing uncertainty in predictions of the measures. Because a complete decision model is created using SDM, it can be evaluated to find the main elements of the model that drive, or predict, the best solution. This approach creates complete decision models that are transparent, traceable, reproducible and technically defensible. The science behind SDM, or decision analysis, is well founded, yet it is not unusual to see ad hoc approaches to decision making implemented under various environmental regulations that are pertinent to the LANL site, including NEPA, RCRA and DOE Order 435.1. Such ad hoc approaches are often not transparent or traceable, and lack reproducibility and technical defensibility. The LANL legacy cleanup program has embarked on using SDM to address the complex problems that remain. Stakeholder meetings have been held, and a prototype version of the stakeholder value system has been developed. Further meetings are expected in the future to address specific project needs. This is a long-term endeavor considering the complex environmental problems faced by DOE EM in Los Alamos (EM-LA), and careful planning, consideration of stakeholder value systems, and engagement with stakeholders throughout the SDM process is expected to lead to a successful endpoint. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗