WASOP, a qualitative methodology for waste minimization: systems thinking, HAZOP principles and nuclear waste

Purpose – The international nuclear community continues to face the challenge of managing both the legacy waste and the new wastes that emerge from ongoing energy production. The UK is in the early stages of proposing a new convention for its nuclear industry, that is: waste minimisation through closely managing the radioactive source which creates the waste. This paper proposes a new technique (called waste and source material operability study (WASOP)) to qualitatively analyse a complex, waste-producing system to minimise avoidable waste and thus increase the protection to the public and the environment. Design/methodology/approach – WASOP critically considers the systemic impact of up and downstream facilities on the minimisation of nuclear waste in a facility. Based on the principles of HAZOP, the technique structures managers' thinking on the impact of mal-operations in interlinking facilities in order to identify preventative actions to reduce the impact on waste production of those mal-operations.' Findings – WASOP was tested with a small group of experienced nuclear regulators and was found to support their qualitative examination of waste minimisation and help them to work towards developing a plan of action. Originality/value – Given the newness of this convention, the wider methodology in which WASOP sits is still in development. However, this paper communicates the latest thinking from nuclear regulators on decision-making methodology for supporting waste minimisation and is hoped to form part of future regulatory guidance. WASOP is believed to have widespread potential application to the minimisation of many other forms of waste, including that from other energy sectors and household/general waste.

Complex skills and academic writing:a review of evidence about the types of learning required to meet core assessment criteria

Assessment criteria are increasingly incorporated into teaching, making it important to clarify the pedagogic status of the qualities to which they refer. We reviewed theory and evidence about the extent to which four core criteria for student writing-critical thinking, use of language, structuring, and argument-refer to the outcomes of three types of learning: generic skills learning, a deep approach to learning, and complex learning. The analysis showed that all four of the core criteria describe to some extent properties of text resulting from using skills, but none qualify fully as descriptions of the outcomes of applying generic skills. Most also describe certain aspects of the outcomes of taking a deep approach to learning. Critical thinking and argument correspond most closely to the outcomes of complex learning. At lower levels of performance, use of language and structuring describe the outcomes of applying transferable skills. At higher levels of performance, they describe the outcomes of taking a deep approach to learning. We propose that the type of learning required to meet the core criteria is most usefully and accurately conceptualized as the learning of complex skills, and that this provides a conceptual framework for maximizing the benefits of using assessment criteria as part of teaching. © 2006 Taylor & Francis.