Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis: From Regulatory Requirements to Conceptual Structure and Computational Implementation

  • Jon C. Helton
  • Cédric J. Sallaberry
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 377)

Abstract

An approach to the conversion of regulatory requirements into a conceptual and computational structure that permits meaningful uncertainty and sensitivity analyses is descibed. This approach is predicated on the description of the desired analysis in terms of three basic entities: (i) a probability space characterizing aleatory uncertainty, (ii) a probability space characterizing epistemic uncertainty, and (iii) a model that predicts system behavior. The presented approach is illustrated with results from the 2008 performance assessment for the proposed repository for high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Keywords

Aleatory uncertainty Epistemic uncertainty Performance assessment Regulatory requirements Sensitivity analysis Uncertainty analysis 

References

  1. 1.
    SNL (Sandia National Laboratories). Total System Performance Assessment Model/Analysis for the License Application. MDL-WIS-PA-000005 Rev. 00, AD 01. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Las Vegas, NV (2008) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    U.S. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). Yucca Mountain Repository Safety Analysis Report. DOE/RW-0573. U.S. Department of Energy, Las Vegas, NV (2008) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    U.S. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). Yucca Mountain Repository License Application. DOE/RW-0573, Rev. 0. U.S. Department of Energy, Las Vegas, NV (2008) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Helton, J.C., Sallaberry, C.J.: Conceptual Basis for the Definition and Calculation of Expected Dose in Performance Assessments for the Proposed High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 94(3), 677–698 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Helton, J.C., Sallaberry, C.J.: Computational Implementation of Sampling-Based Approaches to the Calculation of Expected Dose in Performance Assessments for the Proposed High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 94(3), 699–721 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    U.S. NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 10 CFR Part 63: Implementation of a Dose Standard after 10,000 Years. Federal Register 74(48), 10811–10830 (2009) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    U.S. NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 10 CFR Parts 2, 19, 20, etc.: Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Proposed Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada; Final Rule. Federal Register 66(213), 55732–55816 (2001) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Helton, J.C., Burmaster, D.E.: Guest Editorial: Treatment of Aleatory and Epistemic Uncertainty in Performance Assessments for Complex Systems. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 54(2-3), 91–94 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paté-Cornell, M.E.: Uncertainties in Risk Analysis: Six Levels of Treatment. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 54(2-3), 95–111 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Helton, J.C., Breeding, R.J.: Calculation of Reactor Accident Safety Goals. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 39(2), 129–158 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Helton, J.C., Anderson, D.R., Marietta, M.G., Rechard, R.P.: Performance Assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: From Regulation to Calculation for 40 CFR 191.13. Operations Research 45(2), 157–177 (1997)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Helton, J.C., Anderson, D.R., Jow, H.-N., Marietta, M.G., Basabilvazo, G.: Conceptual Structure of the 1996 Performance Assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 69(1-3), 151–165 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    NAS/NRC (National Academy of Science/National Research Council). Evaluation of Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties for Assessing and Certifying the Reliability of the Nuclear Stockpile. National Academy Press, Washington, DC (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Helton, J.C., Pilch, M.: Guest Editorial: Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 96(9), 959–964 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Helton, J.C.: Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties: Conceptual and Computational Basis. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 96(9), 976–1013 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hora, S.C., Iman, R.L.: Expert Opinion in Risk Analysis: The NUREG-1150 Methodology. Nuclear Science and Engineering 102(4), 323–331 (1989)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McKay, M.D., Beckman, R.J., Conover, W.J.: A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output from a Computer Code. Technometrics 21(2), 239–245 (1979)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Helton, J.C., Davis, F.J.: Latin Hypercube Sampling and the Propagation of Uncertainty in Analyses of Complex Systems. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 81(1), 23–69 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Helton, J.C., Johnson, J.D., Sallaberry, C.J., Storlie, C.B.: Survey of Sampling-Based Methods for Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 91(10-11), 1175–1209 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Storlie, C.B., Helton, J.C.: Multiple Predictor Smoothing Methods for Sensitivity Analysis: Description of Techniques. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 93(1), 28–54 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Storlie, C.B., Swiler, L.P., Helton, J.C., Sallaberry, C.J.: Implementation and Evaluation of Nonparametric Regression Procedures for Sensitivity Analysis of Computationally Demanding Models. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 94(11), 1735–1763 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jon C. Helton
    • 1
  • Cédric J. Sallaberry
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Sandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations