mechanisms of public participation may require efforts by both the implementer and stakeholders. Stakeholders opposed to the repository project may have additional opportunities to deliberately delay (physically or legally) the program.

On balance, the committee judges that the potential advantages of Adaptive Staging outweigh these potential drawbacks. As noted in Section 1.2, the committee believes that the features of Adaptive Staging (e.g., its attributes and Decision Points) can address the technical and societal challenges of a geologic repository program. This belief is based on the committee’s knowledge of repository programs worldwide, its comparisons with other complex projects, and its perception of the compatibility of Adaptive Staging with the principles of sound project management. The inherently self-correcting nature of Adaptive Staging reduces the risk of using such an approach. Given the limited successes of Linear Staging, and given Adaptive Staging’s use of multiple Decision Points for addressing Linear Staging’s limitations, the committee judges that a successful repository program is more likely with Adaptive Staging.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement