This section of the literature review considers the philosophy of WASAN by reviewing the current WASAN literature. This presentation of the philosophy of WASAN in the section is novel as the assumptions underpinning WASAN are deconstructed into ontology, epistemology, and axiology. Presenting the current information on WASAN in this manner will help to identify a clear underpinning philosophy, which will be needed in order to further develop the approach. All three WASAN papers mention an underpinning philosophy of the approach; however, none of them show how the WASAN philosophy is translated into practice through the methodology. To develop WASAN further, this thesis should first understand the WASAN philosophy to ensure any future developments to not alter or distort this philosophy beyond its original intention. The review identified five explicit references to the philosophy of WASAN:
“Waste can be reduced through detailed formal thinking to identify high-
impact deliverables that are carefully implemented” (Shaw & Blundell, 2010 p.355).
“Prevent waste generation by understanding behaviour of source material in
facility-in-focus” (Shaw & Blundell, 2008 p.233).
“Closer management of up/downstream facilities which interact with facility-
in-focus should aim to prevent fluctuations in their operations having negative effect on facility-in-focus” (Shaw & Blundell, 2008 p.248).
“Identify best portfolio of action that will severely limit the course materials generation of avoidable waste resulting from disruptions in facility-in-focus that are caused by mal-operations in up/downstream operations” (Shaw & Blundell, 2008 p.233).
WASAN takes the philosophy that waste disposal should be ‘As Low As Reasonably Practicable’ (ALARP) taken from the Health and Safety Executive’s safety-based philosophy (HSE, 2001) - (Shaw & Blundell, 2014) These can be condensed to five statements that sum up the underpinning assumptions of the WASAN philosophy:
1. Waste has a negative impact upon a facility, but through formal thinking we can understand the behaviour of waste.
2. By understanding waste, we can manage waste maloperations and fluctuations that increase it and how it impacts a facility-in-focus.
3. Formal thinking can be extended to up/downstream of the facility-in-focus. 4. The aim of WASAN is to produce the best portfolio of high-impact actions to
reduce the impact of waste upon the facility-in-focus. 5. The actions should embrace the principle of ALARP.
In addition to these explicit references to philosophy, there are additional regulators principles of what is good practice decision making in the nuclear industry (HSE, 2005), which WASAN had to include within the decision making process to satisfy the NII. These principles state decisions are
a) Auditable: decisions can be traced back to source years later. b) Transparent: the decision and the process are understandable.
c) Clear: no misinterpretation of the content of discussions or the outcome. d) Strategic/planned: decisions are considered locally but recognized within the
wider strategy.
e) Managed: effective leadership of the decision making process and delivery of actions.
f) Optimised/minimised: a streamlined process which could be replicated. g) Integrated: able to explore the wider waste-producing system.
h) Delivered: a practical outcome of feasible recommendations.
In addition to these principles Shaw & Blundell (2010) add the following principles of good practice:
i. Learning: building understanding about the wider waste-producing system.
ii. Agreeing: negotiating the best agreeable outcomes from available insights.
iii. Facilitation: providing structured support to stakeholders’ analysis, learning, and negotiation.
iv. Useable: the method is usable by novice facilitators/practitioners, essential
for national roll-out.
v. Systemic analysis: rigorous analysis of system’s far-reaching inter-
relationships.
The statements 1–5, a–h, and i–v show the underpinning philosophy of WASAN. Philosophy is comprised of assumptions relating to ontology (what is assumed to exist), epistemology (the nature of knowledge), and axiology (values of problem solving) (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). WASAN’s ontology is represented in statements 1–3. These statements identify that waste has a negative impact on a facility-in-focus. However, this waste can be managed to reduce this impact by examining mal-operations in the facility-in-focus and fluctuations from its upstream and downstream channels. WASAN’s epistemology is represented in statements i– v. Knowledge is created through learning, agreeing, and facilitation. The methodology is usable and conducts a systemic analysis. Finally, the axiology of WASAN is represented in statements 4 and 5 and a–h. WASAN should value producing high-impact recommendations regarding the reduction of waste within the facility-in-focus. These recommendations should be deliverable and prioritise waste reduction, that is, ALARP. In addition to these values relating to the output, WASAN also values the process of getting to these outputs. Therefore, the decision making
process should have a clear transparent audit trail that manages waste and is integrated with the wider goals of higher order systems. While the three papers examined the philosophy, it was never deconstructed in this manner. The deconstruction of WASAN in this manner is necessary for the further development of the approach; a clear understanding of the WASAN philosophy is required to achieve both Contributions B and C.
The core principle that underpins the WASAN is a waste management philosophy. This philosophy provides guidance on what should be analysed (ontology), the type of knowledge that is needed to reduce waste (epistemology), and the values that judge if the outputs and process used are good (axiology). These assumptions are translated into real life using the fourth assumption from Guba & Lincoln (2005)—methodology. The development of the WASAN methodology “was characterized by the adoption and amalgamation of principles, documents, tables, language and techniques from industry, regulation and academia” (Shaw & Blundell, 2010 p.351). These techniques constitute the smart bits used to build the methodology. Seven smart-bits already embedded within WASAN are reviewed below. The review examines what the smart bit achieves, its influences or roots, and how it fits in with the WASAN philosophy. A reference to the ontology, epistemology, or axiology and corresponding statement from the above 18 statements in parentheses is made as, for example, if the smart bit was in keeping with the axiological principle of ALARP, then (5) would be the reference as ALARP is from statement 5.