Nuclear weapons require the periodic replacement of tritium, a radioactive gas that decays at approximately 5.5 percent per year. Since 1989 the United States had no tritium supply facility, and, due to the decay of tritium, its inventory was expected to fall below the required reserve level in 2011. To decide how to fill this projected gap, the Department of Energy assessed several tritium supply alternatives, including several types of new reactors, an accelerator, and the use of commercial reactors. This paper describes the decision analysis process, conducted in the mid 90s, to support the decision by the Secretary of Energy to choose among the options. This process involved two rounds of analysis, several surprises and many adjustments. In the end the decision analysis was successful in shaping both the intermediate decision by then Secretary O’Leary and the final decision by Secretary Richardson. Advances: Tritium Production Page 2 of 43 Ch 25 060520 V09 CONTENTS The Problem Getting Started The Multiattribute Utility Analysis Interlude about the Politics of Decision Making The Risk Analysis Production Assurance Analysis Schedule Risk Analysis Capacity Analysis Availability Analysis Production Assurance Simulation Cost Risk Analysis Environmental Analysis The Decision The Aftermath and Some Thoughts about the Role of Decision Analysis References Advances: Tritium Production Page 3 of 43 Ch 25 060520 V09
[1]
Ronald L. Iman,et al.
Expert opinion in risk analysis: the NUREG-1150 methodology
,
1989
.
[2]
Richard S. John,et al.
Assessment of Cost Uncertainties for Large Technology Projects: A Methodology and an Application
,
2002,
Interfaces.
[3]
H. Raiffa,et al.
Decisions with Multiple Objectives
,
1993
.
[4]
Ralph L. Keeney,et al.
Eliciting probabilities from experts in complex technical problems
,
1991
.
[5]
Detlof von Winterfeldt,et al.
An Assessment of Tritium Supply Alternatives in Support of the US Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
,
1998,
Interfaces.