Choosing a Tritium Supply Technology for Nuclear Weapons: Reflections on a Controversial Decision Analysis

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511611308.026

25 - Choosing a Tritium Supply Technology for Nuclear Weapons: Reflections on a Controversial Decision Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012

Detlof Von Winterfeldt

Edited by

Ward Edwards ,

Ralph F. Miles Jr. and

Detlof von Winterfeldt

Show author details

Detlof Von Winterfeldt: Affiliation:
Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California
Ralph F. Miles Jr.: Affiliation:
California Institute of Technology
Detlof von Winterfeldt: Affiliation:
University of Southern California

Book contents

Get access

Summary

ABSTRACT. 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, because of 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-1990s, 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.

The Problem

Tritium is a necessary component of all nuclear weapons. Because tritium decays at a rate of approximately 5.5 percent per year, it must be replaced periodically. Over the past 40 years, the Department of Energy (DOE) has built and operated fourteen reactors to produce tritium and other nuclear materials for weapons purposes. In 1988, then-President Bush shut down the last remaining tritium production facility, a heavy-water reactor in Savannah River, GA. Since that time, no tritium has been produced and the DOE had to rely on recycled tritium from existing weapons to replenish decaying tritium sources.

Type: Chapter
Information: Advances in Decision Analysis
From Foundations to Applications
, pp. 514 - 538

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611308.026 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Department of Energy. (1995a). Record of decision: Tritium supply and recycling programmatic environmental impact statement. Federal Register, December 12, 1995.

Department of Energy. (1995b). Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Tritium Supply and Recycling, DOE/EIS-0161. Washington, DC: Office of Reconfiguration, United States Department of Energy.

Department of Energy. (1995c). Technical Reference Report for Tritium Supply and Recycling, DOE/DP-0134. Washington, DC: Office of Reconfiguration, United States Department of Energy.

Dillon, R.Dillon, R., John, R., and Winterfeldt, D. (2002). Assessment of cost uncertainties for large technology projects: A methodology and an application. Interfaces, 32, 52–66.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fluor Daniel, Inc. (1995a). Schedule Data Package for Tritium Supply and Recycling. Irvine, CA: Fluor Daniel, Inc.

Fluor Daniel, Inc. (1995b). Technical Data Package for Tritium Supply and Recycling. Irvine, CA: Fluor Daniel, Inc.

Fluor Daniel, Inc. (1995c). Cost Data Package for Tritium Supply and Recycling. Irvine, CA: Fluor Daniel, Inc.

Hora, S. C., and Iman, R. L. (1989). Expert opinion in risk analysis: The NUREG 1150 methodology. Nuclear Science and Engineering, 102, 323–331.CrossRef Google Scholar

Keeney, R. L., and Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar

Keeney, R. L., and Winterfeldt, D. (1991). Eliciting probabilities from experts in complex technical problems. IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management, 38, 191–201.Google Scholar

Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (1995). Cost Analysis of Multipurpose Reactor Options. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Putnam, Hayes, and Bartlett, Inc. (1995). DOE Tritium Production Options: PHB Final Report on Cost Analysis. Washington, DC: Putnam, Hayes, and Bartlett.

Winterfeldt, D., and Edwards, W. (1986). Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Winterfeldt, D., and Schweitzer, E. (1998). An assessment of tritium supply alternatives in support of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. Interfaces, 28, 92–112.CrossRef Google Scholar