National Academies Press: OpenBook

One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste (2003)

Chapter: 4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program

« Previous: 3. A Typical Geologic Repository Program
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

4
Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program

The criteria presented in Chapter 2 (Section 2.5) suggest that a geologic repository program could benefit from Adaptive Staging. Previous approaches to repository development, often based on a Linear approach, have met serious obstacles (see Section 2.7). As noted previously, the committee believes that Adaptive Staging is a promising approach that can increase the likelihood of a program’s success, as defined in Chapter 1. Adaptive Staging is in important ways unproven, both in the context of complex, first-of-kind projects, and for natural resource programs (in which the concept was initially developed). At the same time, Adaptive Staging is similar to staged development of other complex projects, such as the approval of pharmaceuticals, structural designs, and is parallel in logic to open-source software development. The advantages of learning in all these arenas are apparent.

The difficulty of implementing Adaptive Staging is not that learning makes sense and is advantageous as compared to Linear Staging. Instead, what is difficult is assuring that learning can be obtained over long time periods and that learning can be used in implementation, and in the face of organizational and political commitments to a Linear model. In addition, deliberate learning requires greater expense for gathering information; it is unclear, however, whether Linear development of a repository under intense scrutiny and conflict incurs any less costs for information gathering and management.

The statement of task directs the committee to discuss Adaptive Staging in terms of:

  • repository program,

  • safety,

  • security,

  • regulatory context, and

  • institutional and societal context.

The committee identified below knowledge gaps to consider when adopting Adaptive Staging.

4.1 Knowledge gaps

There are several knowledge gaps that must be considered when judging whether to apply the principles of Adaptive Staging in repository development. These fall into three categories related to: the effectiveness of Adaptive Staging;

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

implementation procedures; and the behavior of the technical and societal environment.

4.1.1 Effectiveness of Adaptive Staging

Adaptive Staging is an untried approach. The effectiveness of adaptive approaches, as applied to natural resources management, has been evaluated by Lee (1993, 1999). Lee examined the conceptual, technical, equity, and practical strengths and limitations of adaptive management and arrived at the following conclusions: (1) adaptive management has been more influential, so far, as an idea than as a practical means of gaining insight into the behavior of ecosystems utilized and inhabited by humans; (2) adaptive management should be used only after disputing parties have agreed to an agenda of questions to be answered using the Adaptive approach (this is not how the approach has been used to date); (3) efficient, effective societal learning of the kind facilitated by adaptive management is likely to be important in managing ecosystems as humanity searches for a sustainable economy (Lee, 1999).

Hence, though promising in principle, Adaptive Staging has yet to be demonstrated. In addition, there are knowledge gaps on technological, organizational, policy, and managerial factors associated with the ultimate effectiveness of Adaptive Staging. Section 2.6.2 addresses institutional requirements for effective implementation of Adaptive Staging. Examples of key questions are:

  • What is the initial level of public trust and institutional constancy in the implementer?

  • What is the relationship between institutional constancy and public trust?

  • What are the institutional requirements for implementation of Adaptive Staging?

  • What does the implementer need to do to assure that unnecessary delays do not result from Adaptive Staging?

  • What changes does it imply within the culture of the implementer and the regulators?

4.1.2 Implementation procedures

In addition to generic knowledge gaps of any geologic repository development program,1 there are gaps concerning the implementation of Adaptive Staging, particularly from an institutional perspective. Examples of key questions are shown here:

1  

Examples of knowledge gaps common to Linear and Adaptive Staging are: (1) Will the technology needed to monitor key parameters of repository behavior be available? (2) How extensive, spatially and temporally, should a monitoring program be? (3) Are mechanisms for effective stakeholder and public participation available?

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
  • How are the criteria for moving to a forward stage or reverting to a previous stage determined?

  • How can the implementer and the regulator collaborate to ensure the requisite regulatory flexibility?

  • How are costs estimated compared to a Linearly Staged program?

  • How are public acceptance and institutional performance monitored?

  • How is institutional constancy ensured?

  • How can public trust be maintained and enhanced?

  • How is transparency maintained over time?

  • How might political leaders assure the integrity and constancy of the implementing and regulating institutions?

4.1.3 Behavior of the technical and societal environment

Knowledge gaps in the behavior of the technical environment include unknowns about the behavior of the repository and its surroundings and how changes introduced by Adaptive Staging might affect that system. These gaps might lead the implementer to introduce research programs explicitly aimed at clarifying such issues at various stages of repository planning and implementation.

Knowledge gaps in the behavior of the societal environment include two main issues. First, there is widespread agreement that public acceptance is indispensable to the success of any program to manage high-level nuclear waste, but there is little agreement on how to obtain it. Examples of remaining key questions are:

  • What is “public acceptance” or “public support”?

  • When is public acceptance attained?

  • What is the relative standing of respective stakeholders?

    • Should all who are recognized by the implementer have equal standing in the decision-making process?

    • If so, by what procedures should preferences be aggregated to inform decisions? (For example, should each citizen’s views be given the same weight as long-standing institutional actors? Or, how are the value differences that define and separate stakeholder groups to be aggregated?)

    • If not all who are recognized by the definition have equal standing, by what principles are different standings accorded to the variety of stakeholders?

As for the second issue, there have been few geologic repository programs in which stakeholders or the general public have been engaged in technological decision-making.2 A mechanism for including them in the decision-making process remains untested and thus unknown. However, mechanisms are being debated in many countries (NEA, 2002). In France and England, a neutral institution has been selected or established to act as a mediator between various stakeholders (Depeche Meusienne, 2002; UKCEED, 2000). There is need to investigate organiza-

2  

Although there are instances, e.g., in Finland, where stakeholders have taken part in repository site selection.

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

tional and social processes important to public trust, institutional constancy, and the sustaining of political support for a decades-long program that will be expensive but virtually invisible unless the program is failing.

The committee had neither the information nor the time to identify all knowledge gaps or to propose approaches to address them. Some of the knowledge gaps related to these issues have been discussed in previous National Research Council reports (NRC, 1996, 2001). None of these uncertainties prevents the implementer from applying Adaptive Staging. The knowledge gaps of the last two categories are present whether the implementer uses Adaptive Staging or Linear Staging. A primary reason for adopting an Adaptive Staging approach is that the implementer facing first-of-a-kind challenges can gain experience and thereby improve its program. A guiding principle of Adaptive Staging is that opportunities should be grasped to implement specific scientific or social science research aimed at filling the knowledge gaps, reducing uncertainties, and improving safety.

4.2 Impact on repository program’s phases

3

Adaptive Staging affects repository operations, costs, schedules, buffer surface storage, waste transportation, monitoring, and the long-term science and technology program. Just as the individual attributes of Adaptive Staging are not unique to this management approach, some of the impacts discussed below can also result when other approaches are employed. Adaptive Staging also raises important issues concerning safety, security, regulatory processes, institutional requirements, and societal interactions. The committee assesses whether this impact is advantageous for geologic repositories. In some cases the impact of Adaptive Staging may be empirically determined through implementation rather than by theoretical studies.

Both Linear and Adaptive Staging begin with a planned a course of action divided into stages. Unlike Linear Staging, Adaptive Staging uses a reference framework that is flexible and incorporates Decision Points between stages (see Section 2.3). Throughout Adaptive Staging and in particular during the consultation and evaluation processes at Decision Points, the implementer incorporates all attributes of Adaptive Staging: commitment to systematic learning, flexibility, reversibility, transparency, auditability, integrity, and responsiveness. New knowledge, continuously incorporated into the program, is used to guide the formulation of a next stage most suited to moving the program toward its goals. Planning also includes defining roles and mechanisms for interested and affected parties (e.g., implementer, regulator, stakeholders, and the general public) involved in the program. From the beginning, these parties must be aware of the definition of program success, acknowledge that there may be a number of unresolved issues at each stage, and recognize that program adjustments may result as knowledge is improved. The roles of implementer and regulator are described throughout this chapter. Possible roles for stakeholders are sketched below.

3  

The statement of task directs the committee to address operational phases, beginning with licensing. The impact of Adaptive Staging on site characterization and selection are not addressed.

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

The implementer could work with the affected state(s) and/or with regional or local communities to establish a technical oversight group and a stakeholder advisory board; both groups are independent from the national government. These groups can provide independent technical and non-technical analyses of, and advice on, the repository development program. The technical oversight group and the stakeholder advisory board differ in scope of responsibility and nature of membership.

The stakeholder advisory board could work in an advisory capacity to the implementer and serve as a forum to allow project management to engage in dialogue with members of external communities, to improve mutual understanding, and to promote consensus on issues of concern. The technical oversight board would advise on scientific and technical aspects of the program, such as implementation stages (e.g., repository construction and waste emplacement) and the long-term science and technology program. In these roles, both groups would participate as needed in Decision Points. The work of the technical oversight board would, perhaps, overlap to some degree with that done by existing review groups appointed by the national governments (e.g., the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board in the United States, the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee in the United Kingdom, the National Council for Nuclear Waste in Sweden, and the Commission Nationals d’Evaluation in France). However, the independent technical oversight group would focus on local and regional issues and its input would be directly integrated into Decision Points by the implementer.

Membership of the technical oversight group could include independent technical experts in disciplines relevant to repository development, including the social sciences, appointed by and reporting to an entity not directly connected with the program. The identity of this entity would be determined for example, through negotiation with affected local institutional stakeholders and the national government.

On the other hand, stakeholder advisory board would represent stakeholder interests. Membership could include representatives from institutional stakeholders and other stakeholder groups—such as local institutions, local and affected governments, universities, as well as representatives from the industry, non-profit, and labor organizations—with the choice of members being made by these institutions.

As with Linear Staging, the implementer presents to the regulator a reference repository design to obtain construction authorization. With Linear Staging this design is fixed and does not account for the possibility that knowledge gained can change the design (unless an event makes the change unavoidable). With Adaptive Staging there are different possible end points in a reference framework. Parties acknowledge that the design can be changed and optimized as experience is gained. The reference design with Adaptive Staging can include test and pilot facilities where reference and alternative design can be tested. Both Linear and Adaptive Staging reference designs can be changed through license amendments, but under Adaptive Staging the regulator acknowledges the possibility of changing the repository design after the first license is granted. Another difference between Adaptive and Linear Staging is that with Adaptive Staging if flexibility and reversibility are maintained in the reference framework, agreement on goals is sufficient.

In the planning that leads to the reference framework the implementer performs careful analysis of the implications of proposing alternatives (including reversibility) at each Decision Point. There are at least two types of planning involved. The first type concerns programmatic goals; analysis of each alternative is integrated with such considerations as costs, schedules, buffer storage requirements, and transportation plans. The second type addresses the technical and societal environment

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

in which the project must be developed (regulatory constraints and institutional and societal considerations). The committee terms this planning “systemic.” Examples of planning activities that the implementer undertakes to establish the reference framework using Adaptive Staging are as follows:

  • Programmatic planning

    • Planning stages and Decision Points (with the understanding that they may be changed).

    • Identifying foreseeable alternatives in the reference framework and their implications.

    • Considering reversibility and implications thereof.4

    • Planning the licensing strategy.

    • Identifying foreseeable knowledge gaps and learning opportunities.

    • Planning a long-term science and technology program to address technical knowledge gaps.

    • Expanding the monitoring program to assess pre-closure and post-closure performance and to address technical, societal, and institutional knowledge gaps.

    • Integrating the transportation program with the reference framework and its alternatives.

    • Considering the surface storage capability needed to ensure flexibility and reversibility.

    • Planning incorporation of new knowledge from in the program and from outside sources.

  • Systemic planning

    • Working out an agreement with the regulator on licensing strategy.

    • Identifying safeguard vulnerabilities.

    • Identifying learning opportunities, including social and institutional sciences.

    • Planning research in social sciences to address societal and institutional knowledge gaps (see Sidebar 4.1).

    • Identifying roles of a stakeholder advisory board and a technical oversight group as well as mechanisms for input in decision-making (see Sidebar 4.2).

Of course, Linear Staging also can involve similar programmatic and system planning. The key difference with Adaptive Staging is that, although the reference framework is the most likely path to program’s success, at the outset of the program all parties acknowledge the possibility for changes in light of new knowledge, if warranted.

4.2.1 Impact on licensing, construction, and the early operational phase

Adaptive Staging has impacts on the licensing, construction, and early operational phases through:

4  

The Nuclear Energy Agency suggests: “Reversibility may be facilitated, for example, by adopting small steps and frequent reviews in the program, as well as by incorporating engineering measures” (NEA, 2001 b, p. 11).

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

Sidebar 4.1. Focused Social Science Research as an Integral Component of Adaptive Staging

The implementation of Adaptive Staging emphasizes continuous, systematic learning in both technical and societal areas. Indeed, key features of Adaptive Staging are its explicit provision for societal and institutional learning, in parallel with scientific and technical learning, and the incorporation of the combined learning into the Decision Points. Consequently, various sections of this report outline a range of societal and institutional issues that need to be addressed to implement Adaptive Staging most effectively. Operationally, the inclusion of these societal and institutional issues requires a social science research and development (R & D) effort parallel to the science and engineering R&D.

The social science research program is intended to provide information and analyses on:

  1. organizational and operational characteristics of a radioactive waste management program,

  2. institutional characteristics that are needed to ensure confident performance for many management generations,

  3. institutional and organizational factors affecting cost and risk estimates, and budgetary and regulatory accountability, and

  4. processes for public engagement, input, and feedback.

The program comprises study of the following key elements:

Operational characteristics, focusing particularly on the information, data, and other evidence to assess the administrative character of the overall repository system. Specific research tasks include the study of:

  • The extent to which high levels of reliability in operations are required throughout the repository system, and the changes in current practices (including the provision for a continuous, committed management structure) needed to develop sustained and safe operations.

  • The mechanisms most appropriate for societal monitoring of repository development, performance confirmation, and ensuring the transparency and auditability of repository construction and operations.

  • The changes that may be needed in the affected regulatory and oversight communities to accommodate the increased movement of radioactive materials in a long, extended process that will challenge multiple management generations. This would include the potential changes in waste transportation systems and the special accommodations, if any, for current and future vehicles, rail yard master systems, and highway management systems.

Institutional Characteristics, emphasizing the contexts, rules, and practices that determine organizational effectiveness and the significant role

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
  • played by the external environment in shaping organizational performance. An understanding of these characteristics can be pursued through study of:

  • The institutional conditions necessary to sustain trust throughout the decades of repository operations and the centuries following repository closure.

  • The incentives and processes needed to assure stakeholders, the implementer, and governmental agencies that contractors and operators will rise to the level of competence and transparency that are needed to gain and maintain trust across the generations inherent in radioactive waste management systems.

  • Baseline levels and trends in the external social, cultural, and political environment, such as: the levels of public trust or the activity of social movements, the shared beliefs about technology, or the changing dynamics of geopolitics (e.g., terrorist threats) likely to impact repository construction or operations.

The institutional and organizational factors affecting the basis for costs and risk estimates, and budgetary and regulatory accountability, including the capacity to make reasonable estimates and to take appropriate actions. Specific lines of research include:

  • The means to develop a credible data basis for cost estimates (including social costs) and for repository system performance evaluation that take life cycle operations into account.

  • The assembly and collection of data and analyses of perceptions of risks and institutional trust, the changes in such perceptions, and the sources of those changes.

Public understanding and engagement, emphasizing a two-way process of communication and transparency to enhance chances of public acceptability. Research could be devoted to the following tasks:

  • Determining the relative efficacy of alternative methods for engaging independent bodies and stakeholders to assess the development and operational phases of radioactive waste management programs.

  • Identifying the most effective communication mechanisms for the sharing of relevant information among institutional stakeholders, stakeholders, and the public.

  • Managing and coordinating the different streams of knowledge and learning—technical, procedural, and social.

  • Determining the most effective mechanisms of public engagement, based upon systematic field experiments.

  • Establishing baselines followed by continuous monitoring of public attitudes towards the repository and its operations, while tracking the sources of change and their responsiveness to performance confirmation, to management practices, and to other elements of transparency.

How can a social science research program, such as the one above, contribute to the success of Adaptive Staging? It can contribute to the learning

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

process, inform caution, supply perspective, provide understanding of necessary institutional enhancements, and establish procedures for improving the chances of public acceptance. The unprecedented time during which the repository will remain open—likely longer than the entire history of industrial economies—provides an unusual opportunity for social and institutional learning. Social science data and analyses can point to social and political fault lines that caution against misguided beliefs about institutional capability and public acceptance. The continual engagement of stakeholders and the public in the process of Adaptive Staging will ensure that their interests and concerns are not ignored at Decision Points about directions between stages. The success of Adaptive Staging is highly dependent upon institutional constancy and management continuity, requisites with an incipient understanding in the social science literature and amenable to more focused research. The extended time over which the repository will remain open affords the opportunity to experiment with, and adopt mechanisms of, public participation that ensure broad enfranchisement and legitimacy, thereby improving chances of public acceptance.

Social science research has already contributed significantly to an understanding of the dynamics of the application of science and technology in the public sphere. It has demonstrated the importance of transparency and sustained engagement with concerned stakeholders to avoid policy gridlock while establishing the trajectory of future research. For example, it can provide economic and decision analyses to estimate the costs of Adaptive Staging, can point to its legal vulnerability, and can estimate the savings from avoiding path dependent, large-scale mistakes. There is, too, a sizable and rapidly growing literature on the translation of science into public policy and on mechanisms of public participation in that policy.

Based on the above reasoning, the proposed program of social science research, with its provision for societal and institutional learning, for increasing trust in implementing institutions, and for testing methods for stakeholder and public involvement, can enhance knowledge of the societal and institutional context of Adaptive Staging and thus increase the chances of repository program success.

  • test facilities;

  • pilot facilities; and

  • demonstration facilities.

Test, pilot, and demonstration facilities are discussed below (see also Appendix G).

  • Test facilities. The test facility is devoted to short- and long-term scientific experimentation aimed at improving scientific understanding, testing repository behavior, and providing contingency options without disrupting operations or compromising the integrity of the repository (EKRA, 2000, 2002). Test activities are also designed to anticipate changes in the characteristics of waste (e.g., different radioactivity content or thermal output). Repository-specific test facilities are located in the same host formation as the repository, but they are kept physi

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

Sidebar 4.2 Mechanisms of Public Engagement and Participation

The social science component of the pilot stage could be devoted to testing alternative mechanisms for public participation. The evaluation process should lead to informed decisions over which mechanism or mechanisms might best satisfy the need for public involvement in implementing a geologic repository. The mechanisms selected would be incorporated into the full-scale operational phase. Pilot social science research should include evaluations of testing mechanisms for stakeholder participation and the development of techniques for monitoring changes in public confidence, trust, and institutional constancy (see Sidebar 4.1).

Examples of learning opportunities about participation mechanisms and techniques for stakeholder engagement are:

  1. The continued engagement of the stakeholder advisory board during the pilot, the demonstration, and subsequent stages that would:

    • interact with the technical oversight group;

    • review new information collected and take part in the evaluations of stage performance;

    • have input at decision points about how to proceed when a stage is completed; and

    • advise on the pilot experiments of public involvement mechanisms.

  1. The establishment of a social science component to the overall science program to:

    • systematically monitor the societal, economic, and political contexts of stage implementation (thereby providing an early warning system of potential fault lines); and

    • develop the program of experiments in the pilot stage to narrow down the number of public involvement mechanisms that would be implemented in the demonstration stage.

cally separate from the actual disposal areas to avoid compromising the integrity of the repository or interfering with construction or operations. Tests begin before the design is completed and can continue throughout the repository program until no further significant knowledge can be gained. Example activities may include testing of:

  • alternative repository designs

  • waste configurations

  • thermal operating modes and strategies to change them

  • new technologies for waste handling and emplacement operations

  • thermal effects on the host rock

  • stress response of the system (by using temperatures beyond the reference design)

  • repository failure modes and weaknesses

  • new materials for engineering barriers and backfills

  • new monitoring technologies.

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

Tests can stress the components of the safety system beyond their design envelope or even to failure. The purpose is to study a full range of system behaviors. Parallel to the scientific experiments should be societal research whose goal is to test alternative mechanisms for public participation. To ensure transparency, results from such a research program are shared with the stakeholder advisory board and the technical oversight group, who can also provide input on research activities.

• Pilot facilities. The purpose of a pilot facility is to test and evaluate the selected design and operating mode and to gather operational experience that can help to optimize full-scale construction and operation. The pilot allows improvement of safety and efficiency, as well as incorporating societal learning into the process. Pilot tests are not intended to deliver significant information on the long-term behavior of the repository system.

Pilot activities are carried out in configurations increasingly close to those foreseen for the final facility. For instance, pilot activities can begin with non-radioactive waste before the license is obtained and continue with radioactive waste thereafter. At the end of the pilot stage a decision is made to affirm or revise the reference design and operation mode. This process may require a temporary delay in waste emplacement activities or even another pilot stage to confirm the expectation of the revised design and operation mode, if the information gathered during the pilot deviates from expectation. The full-scale operation may continue without any delay if the system performs as expected. A delay in the pilot stage need not delay waste shipments from generator sites if the implementer plans for a sufficient surface buffer storage capacity at the repository site. Pilot activities cease with the selection of the reference design and operation mode.

To ensure transparency, the decision-making process to begin and cease pilot activities is shared with stakeholders, the technical oversight group, and the regulators. Engineering pilot-scale activities are a normal feature of major technology developments. The committee uses the expression “pilot activities in social sciences” to indicate social science work taking place during pilot engineering activities (such as pilot construction, emplacement, or closure). Pilot activities in this sense could include experimentation to determine the public involvement mechanisms most likely to be effective.

• Demonstration facilities. Test and pilot activities are performed primarily to help the implementer develop and/or optimize the repository system. Demonstration activities, on the other hand, aim at increasing technical and public confidence in the chosen design and operation mode. The purpose of such a facility is to demonstrate a realization of the intended design of the repository and to allow particularly comprehensive monitoring of components and systems (e.g., emplaced canisters or borehole and tunnel seals) during the multi-decade operating life of the repository. Demonstration activities occur in parallel with repository operation until final closure. Demonstration activities can be initiated only when the reference disposal configuration has been defined (i.e., after the pilot stage). The pilot facility itself may become a demonstration facility.

Demonstration facilities may be separated from the main disposal areas to carry out intensive monitoring activities that could otherwise compromise the integrity or operation of the full repository. Examples of demonstration activities include: monitoring to demonstrate that the waste or the surrounding rock is not being subjected to unacceptable thermal effects; monitoring to demonstrate that no unanticipated corrosion mechanisms affect the containers; and monitoring to

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

control fluid pressure, flow, and composition. Part of the demonstration facility may also be backfilled to allow monitoring of the complete safety barrier system. Demonstration activities of the implementer are often aimed at increasing the confidence of other stakeholders, most especially the public. Obviously, no direct demonstration of long-term safety is feasible. The demonstration stage is also where demonstrations of candidate public involvement mechanisms are implemented.

Possible locations and timing of test, pilot, and demonstration activities are illustrated schematically in Figures 4.1 and 4.2. Test, pilot, and demonstration activities have an impact on the licensing and construction phases. As with Linear Staging, the implementer submits an application to construct the entire repository and presents the safety case for the entire waste inventory. Unlike Linear Staging, the implementer proposes, in agreement with the regulator, intermediate licensing stages.

This may be implemented in separate licenses, using license amendment procedures, or introducing intermediate permitting stages at a lower level; the choice will depend on the national regulatory framework of each country. For instance, the regulator may grant an initial license only for constructing the test and the pilot facilities. The license application acknowledges that the design and operating mode of the repository can change during the program and establishes a license amendment mechanism to modify the reference design. The regulator and the implementer agree on the type of design or operating mode change that requires a license amendment and the type that requires stakeholder input. Once the initial construction license is granted, the implementer constructs the surface facilities, the underground test areas, and the pilot facility. The test areas are constructed with different designs and test various thermal operating modes. The reference design is implemented in the pilot facility (called “Pilot/Demo facility” in Figure 4.1).

The regulator might grant the license with a condition to emplace first only a small amount of waste to be used in the pilot and test facilities. The construction of the remainder of the repository proceeds in additional stages. On the basis of the information gathered during the pilot and tests, the pilot facility is expanded or a different design is used to excavate a second disposal area, and the regulator removes the initial condition and allows emplacement of the remaining waste inventory.

The final design can be implemented in a dedicated demonstration facility. The implementer constructs additional sections of the repository with the standard design and operating mode unless further optimization is possible based on operational experience or information provided by the ongoing test activities.

There are several advantages to implementing test, pilot, and demonstration activities. First, they maximize learning and improve the repository program throughout the years of operation. Second, they may accelerate the schedule and lower costs of first waste emplacement because of the simplified and limited logistical requirements. Third, they lower the early investment in construction, because these facilities are less expensive and faster to build than a full-scale repository. Fourth, these activities address many challenges of geologic repository development (Table 4.1). Therefore, tackling these issues early can improve the chances for a program’s success.

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

FIGURE 4.1 Cross-section of underground repository areas during the operational phase showing test, pilot, and demonstration facilities. The main facility can be backfilled or kept open until the end of the operational phase. Part of the demonstration facility may be backfilled to allow monitoring of the complete safety barrier system. This diagram is a modified version of the schematic concept proposed for a geologic repository facility in Switzerland, which also includes a pilot and a test facility. The nomenclature used here, however, differs from that used by the Swiss Expert Group on Disposal Concepts for Radioactive Waste (EKRA). SOURCE: Based on EKRA (2000).

The disadvantage of implementing test, pilot, and demonstration activities is the additional cost to construct, operate, and maintain the facilities. There will also be additional costs for monitoring the demonstration facility, which can be difficult to justify, because intensive short-term monitoring cannot provide direct evidence of long-term safety. Pilot, tests, and demonstration activities can delay the implementation of full-scale emplacement rates if results call for additional tests or waste retrieval. They can also reduce public confidence in the current understanding of the repository system if inexplicable results are observed—even those with no obvious safety implications.

4.2.2 Impact on full-scale operations

Major impacts of Adaptive Staging on full-scale operations are:

  • emplacement rates increase (or decrease) if results from pilot and demonstration activities increase (or decrease) confidence in the system; and

  • as the program progresses, early improvements are likely to lead to longer stages in the full-scale operational phase.

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

FIGURE 4.2 Example of possible timeline for implementing test, pilot, and demonstration activities in the pre-operational and the operational phase. The time when test activities will end is uncertain (indicated with a question mark). The timeline is not to scale.

The test, pilot, and demonstration activities increase the likelihood of uninterrupted full-scale repository emplacement operations. Although full-scale operations may begin later than with a Linearly Staged program, waste emplacement may end earlier, reducing overall costs (see the impacts on schedule and costs, Section 4.5). Introduction of new technologies or taking account of new knowledge becomes a normal activity throughout the repository lifetime; amendments to the reference framework are seen neither as a sign of failure, nor as proof that previous approaches were unsatisfactory, but rather as a mechanism for improvement.

If a major or partial adaptation of the system becomes necessary because of indications that performance will not be satisfactory, it would be sensible to suspend all or some operations until a remedy can be developed. This possibility is less likely when increased knowledge leads to an evolution in design or in operational procedures. To illustrate this the committee offers three hypothetical scenarios. Each scenario begins with full-scale operations proceeding smoothly, with drifts being constructed and waste being received and emplaced. A Decision Point to review experience and information gathered to that point is scheduled to occur in two years.5

5  

These are illustrative scenarios, not prescriptions for action.

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

TABLE 4.1 How Pilot, Test, and Demonstration Activities in Adaptive Staging Can Address Challenges of Geologic Repository Programs.a

Challenges of Geologic Repositories

Pilot, Test, and Demonstration Activities Can Address These Challenges by

First-of-a-kind and complex

• improving the understanding of the repository system

• allowing adaptation to unexpected findings more easily than the full-scale facility

• removing the need for premature technical and operational decisions that could foreclose options

• providing contingencies to the reference design without interrupting or disrupting repository activities

• improving the monitoring and science and technology program to address technical, societal, and institutional difficulties (see Sidebar 4.1)

• addressing unresolved questions of repository processes, unhindered by the demands of waste disposal operations

• providing for systematic procedures for stakeholder and public involvement (see Sidebar 4.2) as well as for independent technical oversight.

Risk

• demonstrating the capability of safe transport and safe emplacement of radioactive waste as well as safe retrieval

• testing system behavior under realistic conditions

• performing non-radioactive tests and pilot activities before and during licensing

• lowering risks and consequences because of reduced-scale tests

• introducing Decision Points for re-evaluating, improving, and strengthening the safety case and reversing if needed

Public concern and controversy

• allowing testing of options or hypotheses suggested by all partiesb (regulator, implementer, stakeholders), diffusing doubts and increasing confidence in the repository

• providing an opportunity for the implementer and the regulator to demonstrate openness and accessibility

• observing the performance of the repository by the demonstration facility throughout the duration of repository operation

• providing early warning of unexpected phenomena in the demonstration facility

• adding license conditions before moving to full-scale emplacement (This intermediate pilot stage may enhance regulator and stakeholder confidence in the implementer. It also demonstrates that regulatory oversight does not end with the first license.)

• systematically establishing transparent stakeholder, affected community, and public involvement procedures that emphasize continuous involvement (See Sidebar 4.2)

aThese challenges are discussed in Section 1.2.1

bAll test and pilot activities must not compromise the integrity of the repository, and those involving radioactive waste must first be approved by the regulator.

Scenario One: Approaching the Decision Point, all operational experience and new information indicate that the project is on track. The implementer decides to

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

have the decision-making process run in parallel with waste emplacement and repository construction. The decision results in some minor recommendations to improve operations in the next stage. The implementer makes the correct judgment that no unacceptable or irreversible consequences can result from continuing operations during the Decision Point even though in principle the decision results in the reversal of some work.

Scenario Two: Two years before the Decision Point, a construction accident causes the implementer to suspend repository excavation and immediately begin an investigation to determine its cause. The implementer continues to receive waste and emplace it in existing drifts or buffer storage. The implementer schedules a new Decision Point to occur at the conclusion of the investigation of the accident. At this point the results of the investigation are evaluated, options are developed and evaluated, and a decision is made to modify construction methods to prevent future accidents. Repository construction resumes integrating the new method and the implementer plans a future potential Decision Point.

Scenario Three: The year before the Decision Point, the implementer develops a new technology for emplacement that promises cost savings with no compromise to safety. This knowledge is shared with regulators, independent technical oversight groups, and stakeholders. At the Decision Point the implementer obtains information on whether potential savings warrant immediate adoption of the new technology. The implementer decides to study and refine the new technology, through a pilot implementation and to consider adopting it at the next scheduled Decision Point. Meanwhile, waste emplacement continues with the “old” technology.

The point of these scenarios is to show that with Adaptive Staging management decisions depend on the nature of the information be introduced in the program. Adaptive Staging does not necessarily lead to undue delays.

4.2.3 Impact on closure and post-closure

The main impacts of Adaptive Staging on closure and post-closure phases are:

  • a flexible schedule for closure and sealing is understood to be part of Adaptive Staging and not as an inability to make decisions;

  • the schedule allows for a sufficient number of Decision Points to decide if, when, and how the repository is to be closed or monitoring ended;

  • the repository remains open until all parties agree that it is safe to close it; and

  • stakeholders and the technical oversight group can contribute to the definition of, and subsequent amendments to, the post-closure monitoring program.

As waste emplacement in the repository continues over decades, the repository’s maximum allowable capacity will be approached or reached. Reaching this operational milestone, the transition is made from the operational phase to the closure and post-closure phases, which will trigger a number of activities and decisions, as depicted in Figure 4.3. The decision tree shows some of the critical and anticipated Decision Points in this transition and highlights the important role of monitoring and safety. (Some impacts of Adaptive Staging on closure and post-closure activities are also discussed together with the impacts on monitoring and safety in Section

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

4.6 and Section 4.8, respectively.) Figure 4.2 reflects the assumption that both the science and the monitoring programs will continue at least up to repository closure.

Approval of closure implies that the safety case has been updated and demonstrated and that new knowledge has been integrated to increase confidence in the long-term safety of the repository. Closure also implies that waste will not be retrieved for future use or reprocessing and therefore must be safeguarded from external intrusion. (As noted previously, it is conceivable that programmatic waste retrieval can be attempted after closure—perhaps in response to some previously undetected flaw in the repository or because some future technological breakthrough will make reprocessing of high-level radioactive wastes viable and desirable.) The need for safeguards and the desire for continued assurance may require decisions to be made about monitoring and whether to emplace surface barriers or markers to warn future generations of the presence of hazardous radioactive materials in the subsurface.

The closure process can also be performed in a staged manner. Closure will require construction of the final engineered barriers, including buffers, backfills, and seals. After final construction of engineered barriers but before decisions are made about closure, some period of monitoring of the seals should be added to the monitoring program to assure that, at a minimum, the seals are stable and effective. After site closure has been completed the post-closure stage begins and continues as long as necessary. Currently, there are no regulatory requirements for societal or government activities during the post-closure stage. This is partly because the persistence of institutional control so far into the future cannot be predicted or assured. This lack of assurance is one reason why the repository should not impose on future generations any obligation for indefinitely long, active institutional control. A parallel implication is that the facility will be judged to be so safe that it will not (and should not) require such indefinite control.

Nevertheless, entering the post-closure phase requires institutional control at least up to that time. To attain this stage, confidence in long-term safety will be very high. Even though confidence in safety is high, some small degree of risk and uncertainty inevitably remains. A range of options for continued safeguarding should be considered, including planning for the maintenance of a monitoring program that would continue indefinitely into the future as long as it is deemed necessary and important to future generations. Perpetuation of such a program presumes that society’s awareness of the existence of the repository persists. The likelihood of this can be enhanced through use of markers and thoughtful and thorough recordkeeping and documentation. Rationales for decisions can be incorporated into this long-term institutional memory. Site security also can be maintained to minimize the possibility of human intrusion—either intentional or accidental.

When future generations of stakeholders are assured of repository performance and safety, they can make the decision whether to cease monitoring activities. In the far future it is less desirable to envision abandoning the repository because of either a gradual loss of institutional persistence or a major political or societal upheaval. Closure with no monitoring based on high confidence in the repository’s inherent safety is clearly the goal. Adaptive Staging is a philosophy that should be able to successfully guide repository managers over many generations to that final milestone.

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

FIGURE 4.3 Committee’s examples of decision tree and activities during the late operational, closure, and post-closure phases of a repository program using Adaptive Staging. A variety of monitoring activities is ongoing during these phases.

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

4.3 Impact on buffer storage requirements

Adaptive Staging has the following impacts on buffer surface storage requirements:

  • higher buffer storage capacity may be required at or near the site compared with Linear Staging; and

  • the implementer must work with waste storage facility managers to optimize surface storage requirements.

Adaptive Staging’s flexibility and reversibility may require a higher buffer surface storage capability located at or near the repository site to keep open various options for emplacement schedules. Sufficient buffer storage provides the flexibility to choose among wastes types (thermal blending), for managing emplacement and for ensuring a place to which waste can be credibly retrieved, should the need arise. Such buffer storage also provides a flexible mechanism to separate waste acceptance from waste disposal. Increased buffer storage allows for flexibility in the system, and affects the need for at-reactor storage and transportation capacity. A cost-and schedule-driven Linear Staging approach tends to minimize buffer storage and aims for “just-in-time” delivery of waste.

The main negative impact of Adaptive Staging is the cost of the surface storage. In a Linear approach that couples shipment rates with underground emplacement rates, only minimum surface storage capability is necessary. If waste emplacement and construction do not encounter any obstacle (i.e., the repository is constructed and waste is emplaced according to the pre-determined schedule and there is no need to retrieve it), Linear Staging is probably more economical than Adaptive Staging.

In many programs there is reluctance to implement a high-capacity buffer storage, especially if the storage facility operates before the repository is functional, out of societal fears that the buffer storage facility could become a permanent surface storage facility. This concern can be alleviated if the regulator grants the repository construction authorization before the surface facility is built and if the regulator grants the licenses to receive and emplace waste in the repository before the buffer storage facility is operational. In some countries, such as the United States, the law forbids the implementer (the Department of Energy) to begin any construction of storage facilities or acceptance of waste at the site before the regulator (the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) grants the licenses to construct the repository and emplace the waste.6

4.4 Impact on transportation

The main impacts of Adaptive Staging on transportation are that:

6  

However, the need for a license does not imply that Adaptive Staging requires changing regulations. It means that the implementer must specify the use of buffer storage in the license application.

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
  • waste transportation to the repository site can begin earlier, perhaps at lower cost, with a small amount of waste;

  • waste transportation rates are more flexible, because they are independent of underground emplacement rates; and

  • the buildup to full operation affords opportunities to investigate alternative transport routes and methods.

Adaptive Staging implies that the timing, size, rate, and modes of transportation will be integrated with buffer storage and repository operations. In fact, implementing a complete transportation system is itself a major, complex project that can meet the criteria for application of Adaptive Staging (see Section 2.5) and could benefit from this approach.7 Adaptive Staging will result in a slower buildup of transportation rates. However, by decoupling waste emplacement from waste acceptance, transportation can begin earlier, perhaps at lower cost and with a more flexible road transport mode. Trucks could begin transporting waste to the repository rather than waiting until a transportation system is in place for full-scale operations. If the transportation system is staged, waste emplacement for pilot and tests can begin as soon as the repository is licensed. Adaptive Staging provides opportunities to learn about transportation routes, modes, and logistics and their progressive integration in the program, as well as about public concerns and attitudes. The final transportation program may then incorporate more safety features and follow optimized routes, be more cost-effective, and better address public concerns.

4.5 Impact on program schedule and costs

The impacts of Adaptive Staging on program schedule and costs are:

  • up-front investments for test and pilot facilities;

  • increased costs for high capability of buffer surface storage;

  • added time and costs for Decision Points;

  • investment for a continuing monitoring program (see Section 4.6); and

  • investment for a continuing long-term science and technology program (see Section 4.7).

As noted previously, the actual impact of Adaptive Staging on the overall program’s schedule and costs is uncertain because Adaptive Staging has never been tested in the context of geologic repositories.8 The a priori cost-benefit assessment of a flexible management approach, such as Adaptive Staging, compared to that of

7  

This report does not address waste transportation. A National Research Council study on transportation of radioactive materials is under way.

8  

Kai Lee noted that “The adaptive approach rests on a judgment that a scientific way of asking questions produces reliable answers at lowest cost and most rapidly; this may not be the case very often. As Carl Walters has emphasized, adaptive management is likely to be costly and slow in many situations (e.g., Walters, Goruk, and Radford, 1993)” (Lee, 1999; p.3).

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

Linear Staging is a recurrent problem in research in economics and decision theory. The committee is not in a position to analyze specific cost implications.

Adaptive Staging may appear to lead to greater costs because of its cautious beginning. However, Adaptive Staging reduces the need to commit prematurely to costly program elements such as materials and technology purchases or full-scale construction. This gradual approach may lead to faster and less expensive resolution of problems. Program revisions made at each stage, based on previous stage experience, may avoid longer-term, irreversible difficulties that could be more expensive to solve and could actually slow progress. The potential cost problems involved with an inflexible Linear approach have been summarized by Holling:

“…even when errors are not, in principle, irreversible, the size of the original investment of capital and of prestige often makes them effectively so. This behavior has its roots in a very human characteristic of industrial man: we do not like to admit and pay for our past mistakes; we prefer to correct them. And the consequences of correcting an inflexible plan [are] often increasing investment, increasing costs for maintaining and controlling the system, and progressive foreclosure of future decision options” (Holling, 1978; p. 8).

Second, there needs to be analyses of the cost impacts of Adaptive Staging as it affects the schedule of the early operational phase. If a license is granted, Adaptive Staging is likely to reduce the time and costs to emplace the first high-level radioactive waste. This allows an earlier start to confirmatory testing and optimization of operations. The cost incurred to operate a test facility and/or a pilot facility is appreciable but smaller than full-scale repository costs. Thus, if one of the programmatic benchmarks is the point when emplacement begins, it is likely that Adaptive Staging reduces costs to reach this milestone, whereas with Linear Staging full-scale facilities are built before beginning waste emplacement.

Third, discount rates must be considered. This more debatable point is that savings using any discount rate may reduce costs in an Adaptively Staged program since major construction costs for building a full-scale facility arise later than if the repository is built all at once.

Fourth, there is the need to assess the effects of public resistance. Public resistance adds delays and thereby increases the costs of implementation. Public concerns, opposition, and controversy are recognized challenges to a geologic repository program (see Section 1.2). Thus, while the flexibility of Adaptive Staging may lead to short-term delays and added initial costs, the medium-term effect may be a cost saving because of enhanced acceptance of the repository.

Finally, any discussion comparing the schedules for Linear and Adaptive Staging must consider the time necessary to gather information. Linear Staging needs information to plan the whole project before it starts. This is what NASA attempted before it started the development of the International Space Station (Appendix C). For a complex, controversial project such as a repository development this might mean years of research and testing before a Linearly Staged project could begin. Adaptive Staging, making small, reversible, incremental decisions allows both time for learning while early stages are accomplished, and incorporation of new information into options for later stages. Thus, an Adaptively Staged project might start and end earlier than a Linear project, although this cannot be proven.

In summary, Adaptive Staging need not necessarily increase costs; it may do so in the short run, but it may also serve to avoid expensive errors over the long-term

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

or reduce delays (hence costs) caused by programmatic inefficiencies or societal conflicts. The low-cost estimates of developing projects with Linear Staging often prove unrealistic because of the assumption that the project will proceed as planned in advance with no surprises or disruptions. NASA’s Space Station offers an illustrative example: managed Linearly, it continues to experience cost growth and capability shrinkage due to unanticipated factors, as described in Appendix C.

4.6 Impact on the monitoring program

A credible, comprehensive monitoring program is an integral part of any management approach for repository development, but takes on increased value and importance under Adaptive Staging because monitoring allows for systematic learning. The impacts of Adaptive Staging for the monitoring program are:

  • monitoring takes on enhanced importance because it is a primary method for obtaining data required to make decisions;

  • monitoring activities may increase during the pre-operational and operational phases;

  • effort must be devoted to developing a monitoring program that satisfies the attributes of Adaptive Staging;

  • mechanisms must be developed to ensure that the monitoring program has sufficient scientific credibility and lack of bias;

  • the monitoring program may include a wider array of measurable parameters, including future societal, institutional changes, and economic impacts;

  • developing a monitoring program involves cost optimization and organization of financing;

  • the monitoring program design must include redundancy; and

  • monitoring must link to both the performance confirmation9 and to the long-term science and technology programs.

The first five impacts are specific to the implementation of Adaptive Staging. The last three address crucial aspects of a monitoring program that are equally valid for Adaptive or Linear Staging. A discussion of each impact follows.

First: before construction and operation, monitoring is conducted over the entire site. This monitoring activity produces a baseline database characterizing the conditions, properties, and behavior at the site before any disturbance is caused by repository operations. Baseline conditions are established during the site characterization stage. Baseline measurements provide the foundation for making decisions related to future system performance. Intensive in situ monitoring of the pilot disposal rooms, their environs, and their engineered barriers provides essential data for scaling up to a fully operational activity. The pilot and test facilities also serve as a testing ground for monitoring methodologies. During the operational phase, monitoring is used to follow the performance of the repository (as part of the

9  

The performance confirmation program is a process to test and evaluate whether the repository system is working as expected and within the acceptable safety margin.

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

FIGURE 4.4 Role of monitoring during the operational phase of the repository. This figure indicates how monitoring interacts with management, construction, and operation activities and with the long-term science and technology program. Repository operations affect the system’s behavior; changes in behavior, in turn, are detected by monitoring.

performance confirmation program). Figure 4.4 illustrates the role of monitoring during the operational phase and indicates how monitoring interacts with management, construction, and operation activities and with the science program.

The post-closure monitoring program might be a scaled-down version of the pre-closure monitoring program. Most likely, in situ repository monitoring would be precluded during the post-closure stage to ensure repository integrity. For example, monitoring may be limited to observation wells, geophysical surveying techniques, and remote-sensing methods. A further example of post-closure monitoring is ensuring that the repository seals remain effective and stable. By the time the post-closure stage begins it is likely that unanticipated monitoring technologies will be available for use.

Post-closure monitoring can continue for as long as institutional control and memory persists and can provide input for maintaining confidence in system performance. An Adaptively Staged monitoring program will continue for as long as deemed necessary by the implementer, regulator, and stakeholders.10

Second: monitoring by definition is the primary tool for obtaining data required for systematic learning; that is, monitoring provides information for essential repository management decisions. In the context of an Adaptively Staged geologic repository program, the monitoring program should feed into the Decision Points. It is central

10  

Monitoring in this context is not intended to be a substitute, but rather a complement to the safety of the system of natural and engineered barriers.

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

to Adaptive Staging that monitoring of repository performance can make a difference in repository operations, in comparison to Linear Staging, in which monitoring is used to assure compliance rather than achieve improvements or warning of trouble. Monitoring is intended to provide a safeguard against poor predictive accuracy of models, because the ability to make accurate long-term predictions of material and system behavior is not proven. Another purpose of monitoring is to assess long-term environmental changes and their impact on the repository environment. If a climate change, or seismic or volcanic activity, alters the conditions on which the safety case was based, then the implementer must know this and respond accordingly.

Because monitoring geologic repositories is also a first-of-a-kind endeavor, monitoring approaches must be designed with flexibility in mind. Monitoring can be reduced or simplified if confidence in safety increases, or monitoring can be intensified or shifted to new targets if new questions and concerns arise about component or overall repository performance. During the long operational life of a repository, new monitoring technology will likely lead to modifications of the monitoring program. The monitoring program extends throughout the repository program and well into the post-closure phase. As new data and knowledge are gathered over time, the monitoring program needs periodic re-evaluation and adaptation to maintain efficiency and effectiveness. Monitoring a complex system such as a geologic repository has technological challenges (see Appendix E). Hence, the development of the monitoring program itself could benefit from Adaptive Staging, because many decisions are predicated on previous ones (see Figure 4.3).

Third: the monitoring program requires all attributes of Adaptive Staging, in particular integrity and lack of bias. Integrity and lack of bias are key attributes in the context of a monitoring program for a geologic repository, because the monitoring data are key to assessing system behavior and whether the program is meeting established safety criteria. Part of the monitoring program may be overseen or even directed and performed by stakeholders and institutions that do not have a direct mission to build, operate, or regulate the repository and that have a strong likelihood of maintaining continuity of purpose. Transparency, integrity, and demonstrated openness to views of others are also enhanced by negotiating the details of the design and operation of the monitoring program with stakeholders, the technical oversight group, and the regulator.

Fourth: the transparency and auditability of the monitoring program, combined with a mechanism to seek and incorporate stakeholders’ and regulators’ input can help to promote confidence in the ability of the repository to function as intended. Additionally, monitoring provides an early-warning system to alert implementer, stakeholders, and regulators to potential problems or questions that may affect repository performance and that must be resolved (Figure 4.4).

The monitoring program communicates and seeks input from the stakeholder advisory board and the technical oversight group to expand the knowledge base and to establish scientific credibility. Scientific credibility can be maintained and costs kept justifiable only if potential traps are avoided. In a recent workshop (EPRI, 2001), several such caveats for the monitoring program were noted. The more relevant of these are paraphrased as follows:

  • do not agree to do what cannot be done with available technologies;

  • do not claim that safety can be demonstrated based on monitoring of limited duration or extent;

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
  • do not require unattainable accuracy or precision in measurements; and

  • do not assign an excessive level of conservatism on a subsystem simply on the basis that it appears to be relatively easy to stay within the bounds.

Fifth: the social and institutional context of the program may change and undermine the design of the program—for example, by altering transportation capabilities for delivering waste to the repository. The implementer is responsible for sensing and alerting authorities and society to emerging incompatibilities between social conditions and the mission of safely disposing of radioactive waste. The committee terms this type of monitoring “societal monitoring.” Examples of societal monitoring are changes in stakeholder attitudes or confidence in repository performance, trends in public acceptability and in stakeholder participation, losses in or maintenance of institutional memory, and audits of those institutions having critical responsibilities relative to the repository program. Information gathered from social monitoring should also be useful in preparing contingency plans to assure that interruption of the program could still lead to safe shutdown of facilities and handling of wastes left unemplaced. Many aspects of social monitoring and assessment are new, and there remain uncertainties as to what parameters to measure and how to measure them other than by survey methods. This is part of the basis for recommending the need for additional research in these areas. The monitoring program may also include monitoring the economic impacts of the program (see Sidebar 4.1).

Sixth: the monitoring program requires a tradeoff between cost (as related to comprehensiveness) and robustness (or reliability). Monitoring cannot observe all parameters at all locations at all times. It is a sampling problem, partly statistical in nature. Adaptive Staging allows the monitoring program to adapt based on sound science and engineering practices. However, Adaptive Staging implies that stable financial resources are dedicated to the monitoring programs to allow continuity and maximum benefits from results.

Seventh: the monitoring program must include redundancy in design because data gathered from the monitoring program are critical to decision-making and provide assurance that the repository is functioning as expected. If one device fails, a system must be in place to prevent this failure from compromising the integrity of the monitoring program. Even in the absence of failure, a redundant monitoring program can provide correlation on measurements. Multiple methods of acquiring information assure that critical measurements are not overlooked or lost, or that faulty measurements are detected. Instrumentation that fails is replaceable at least before closure of the repository. Monitoring data must also be stored and preserved in ways that will assure wide availability and recovery of records far into the future. Future generations will then have the opportunity to review monitoring plans and results and make suitable adjustments. The monitoring methodology must be adaptable to information gained during the course of the monitoring program. It involves techniques of various levels of sophistication. Baseline measurements are sufficiently diverse and frequent to anticipate future needs in performance confirmation.

Eighth: an Adaptively Staged monitoring program is strongly linked to and integrated with the performance confirmation program and the long-term science and technology program in the following way (see Figure E.2 in Appendix E). Monitoring provides data for the performance confirmation program and to improve the understanding of the repository system’s behavior. The performance confirmation and the long-term science and technology programs dictate the data needs from the monitoring program. In turn, the monitoring program tests model predictions and evalu-

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

ates key uncertainties. The long-term science and technology program may also provide updates in monitoring technologies.

The committee notes a number of knowledge gaps associated with the implementation of a cost-effective, technically sound, and confidence-building monitoring. Questions to be addressed are shown below.

  • Who decides what technical data are necessary?

  • Are the technologies to obtain necessary monitoring data available?

  • How extensive should a monitoring program be?

  • What are the mechanisms to communicate results to stakeholders and the general public?

  • What kind of data would enhance public confidence?

  • How can duplication or disruption of the implementer’s monitoring efforts with the participation of stakeholders and the regulator be avoided?

  • What conditions assure the institutional capability to conduct monitoring over the relevant time periods?

In sum, Adaptive Staging’s continuous, systematic learning requires an ongoing program to monitor the engineered and natural barriers of the repository environment and a concurrent long-term science and technology program to (1) analyze and interpret the system behavior; (2) recommend system improvements when provided with new information; and (3) address knowledge gaps. Adaptive Staging provides an opportunity for the social sciences to perform parallel monitoring functions and other relevant research to enhance the societal and institutional aspects of program development.

Some of the important new scientific and technical information will emerge from technical monitoring of the system, some will arise from specific studies before and during the operational phase, and some will result from experience gained in all stages. Continuous learning is also a goal for the social sciences, which means that a social science program is designed for learning, providing feed back from what has been learned, and adapting. This goal can be accomplished by evaluating practical experience gained during prior stages and by performing custom-designed social science research.

4.7 Impact on the long-term science and technology program

In the committee’s view, a long-term science and technology program that includes both research and development is an integral part of a geologic repository program. In the context of this science and technology program, Adaptive Staging implies:

  • maintaining a continuing long-term science and technology program until closure;

  • developing research plans that address the critical technical and societal issues;

  • integrating continuously the results;

  • retaining qualified staff in the program; and

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
  • integrating the scientists’ input into the monitoring program.

In Linear Staging the role of a science and technology program, particularly after licensing, might be viewed as minimal. While some research might continue to confirm repository behavior, the emphasis is on implementation of the reference case with the minimal changes. For example, the choice of a waste packaging material becomes fixed once a license is issued. Therefore, further research on packaging material is not needed.

With Adaptive Staging, the waste packaging material compositions and properties become the subject of review if new information justifies it. The four possible outcomes of the review are: (1) judging the previously chosen materials to still be the best available; (2) using a different or a better material in the future; (3) replacing material already in place in the repository; or (4) taking no action until more information is available. A better material can be one that yields substantial savings, even if overall repository performance is not improved.

A robust, sustained science and technology program is consistent with the commitment to the systematic learning attribute of Adaptive Staging. The long-term science and technology program reflects the implementer’s questioning attitude, searching for vulnerabilities and better approaches to achieving repository goals. In Adaptive Staging, a long-term science and technology program is needed to: (1) reduce known uncertainties;11 (2) develop the capability for responding to “surprises” (i.e., unknown uncertainties or discoveries);12 and (3) improve or identify weaknesses of the safety case (and help address them) by providing additional evidence that the repository is behaving as predicted; and (4) further develop, refine, or test aspects of the performance assessment methodology.13

The long-term science and technology program focuses in part on hypothesis falsification. If the hypotheses14 are not verified and new information has a significant effect on safety or confidence in safety, then either a) the program is revised, possibly by reverting to an earlier stage, or b) the safety case is changed in light of new information (e.g., showing that a worrisome failure scenario is in fact impossible). A viable science program will assess the consequences of an unverified hypothesis. If consequences have no bearing on safety or are only of academic interest, then no response is needed. Making changes in light of evidence that casts

11  

Examples of known uncertainties include: corrosion of spent fuel and glass; thermodynamic properties of geologic materials; behavior of geologic materials and natural barriers; and processes, mechanisms, and pathways that control groundwater flow.

12  

Examples of research capabilities for responding to unknown uncertainties include: research on new types of waste forms and waste packages materials, monitoring technologies, storage and retrieval of data over long time scales, and/or new types of public involvement mechanisms.

13  

For example, some underlying conceptual models can be tested and evaluated by analysis of natural systems that are analogs to the repository system. Examples of natural systems used for comparison include the groundwater composition at the uranium ore deposit of Bangombé (Jensen et al., 2002) and the loss of minerals at the Peña Blanca uranium ore deposit (Murphy and Cadell, 1999). An extensive database that can be used to compare code results with observed data is available in the literature.

14  

For example, hypotheses in geohydrology, engineering, societal context, security, and costs can be subject to hypothesis falsification.

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

doubt on a hypothesis is a matter of standards of disproof; these standards could be established by mechanisms such as peer review or repeated testing and re-assessment within the scientific community.

The science and technology program can also assist in improving institutional relations, and perhaps public confidence, by obtaining information important to stakeholders and the general public. In the committee’s opinion, a strong science and technology program is needed not only at the beginning of a program but also throughout the entire project, at least until closure and possibly after closure as well. Continued improvement of methods and techniques will likely allow better data to be included in the program.

Adaptive Staging acknowledges the possibility for unanticipated events during the course of repository development and is prepared to address them by maintaining a research capability throughout the repository program. Research capability means that the implementer has an ongoing program that focuses on the most likely areas of need. To be effective, the science and technology program must be a long-term effort that maintains continuity of purpose and encourages tenure of technical and management personnel.

Therefore, Adaptive Staging requires leadership to maintain the institutional capability to conduct such a science and technology program over the relevant time periods. It also requires hiring and retaining qualified scientific staff to function as a sustainable pool of knowledge for long-term science and technology programs. It requires a highly qualified staff to analyze and interpret data collected by the monitoring program and to provide input and feedback into the monitoring program. Hiring and retaining a body of highly qualified scientists increases program costs. Maintaining a long-term science and technology program can be challenging when competing with budget allocations for pressing operational issues.

4.8 Impact on safety

Adaptive Staging has the following impacts on safety:

  • it raises the importance and requires frequent updates of the safety case and encourages continuing open review of the safety case, leading to improvements of the repository system or even to rejection of an unsuitable site; and

  • it takes a more cautious approach to radiation exposure control and accident risk for workers.

Safety refers here to worker and public safety. A key feature of Adaptive Staging is the iterative review of the safety case. At Decision Points between stages, the implementer conducts a systematic re-evaluation of the safety case when relevant new information is gained during the previous stage. Even when no new negative information is gained, the review provides additional confidence that the adopted design is satisfactory. When improvements are in order, they can be implemented as part of the normal course of operations and not viewed as a detrimental deviation from previous plans.

The re-evaluation of the safety case, in turn, serves to guide the collection of data in a subsequent stage. A critical aspect of safety case review is that the program not only specifies new data to collect but also allows for hypothesis falsifica-

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

tion and testing concerning repository performance. Over time as stages are completed, the ability of the program to predict performance improves. This improvement, in turn, increases confidence in the robustness of the safety case.

The committee re-emphasizes that the re-evaluation of the safety case neither implies repeated questioning of earlier decisions, nor necessarily leads to a pause in program activities, and in no case is it an excuse for unnecessarily delaying decisions. Its purpose is to examine the current situation to know how to proceed, not to belatedly question how one arrived at the current situation. The implementer ensures that any major changes in original program goals or strategy are based on new knowledge and new understanding of the system and not from incremental changes.

The activities associated with the construction and operation of a geologic repository are extensions of familiar industrial activities in mining, handling heavy equipment, and handling substances that emit strong ionizing radiation. The unique aspects in repository operations are that the heavy waste packages that emit the radiation must be removed from a controlled shielded environment at the surface to the underground drifts (shielded or unshielded). To some extent remote-handling techniques may be required. These activities can begin in a pilot stage, first using simulated waste and then actual waste to develop the best techniques for handling the waste effectively, while keeping worker radiation exposure as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). These techniques are then used for the full-scale waste handling and emplacement.

The use of pilot facilities is also valuable for minimizing the risk of industrial accidents, a serious concern for heavy operations in a repository. The development of low-risk designs and procedures requires the development of a safety culture in repository management and workforce (see Section 2.2). Experience with large industrial operations and with operating repositories, such as the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, show that hazards and accidents can be minimized when the management and workforce adopt a safety culture that puts safety at the forefront of operations. With Adaptive Staging this safety culture permeates the management of the implementer and its workforce, and contractors.

Management implements incentives for the workforce to ensure that employees remain involved in the safety program. Safety management tools already exist; for instance, the environmental management standard ISO 14001 is used in a number of facilities (e.g., in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in the United States and in the Swedish program). These tools incorporate many of the attributes of Adaptive Staging. They promote continuous learning and periodic re-evaluation, provide for independent auditing and reporting, and are a way to provide transparency in the important issue of operational safety (ISO, 1996a, b).

When these attitudes are instilled into the physical aspects of the operation, they become part of the safety culture of the organization, leading to a pervasive questioning attitude about how and why things are done. Management and workers look for vulnerabilities in the present mode of operation and develop a conduct of operations that will ensure continuous safe behavior.

4.9 Impact on security

The committee identified no significant negative impacts of Adaptive Staging on security. There are two fundamental issues to address when considering the impact

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

of Adaptive Staging on the security of any country. First, for countries whose national security depends on nuclear activities there must be a secured management process in place for handling waste. Thus, there are national security implications arising from the disposal of some defense-related high-level radioactive waste when such waste contains such materials as highly enriched uranium or plutonium. The Adaptive Staging approach offers additional flexibility before emplacement to choose or blend wastes according to their security requirements or their radioactivity content and thermal throughput.

Following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, attention must be given to the impacts on program goals and objectives that relate to security of radioactive wastes and the increased awareness of their vulnerability to terrorism. A number of organizations and individuals have raised issues with regard to security that may have a direct or indirect bearing on repository programs. Among these are potential vulnerabilities at generator sites, particularly spent fuel in pool storage at nuclear power plant sites, and vulnerabilities during transportation of spent fuel from plant sites either to a consolidated interim storage facility or a repository. These issues have been discussed in a recent National Research Council report on counter-terrorism (NRC, 2002b).

As noted previously, Adaptive Staging can slow the initial pace of underground waste emplacement. At the very least, it removes the certainty of placing the high-level waste underground by a given date. The inevitable pressures to accelerate the emplacement of waste, due to nuclear proliferation or terrorist concerns, counters the tendency of Adaptive Staging to proceed in a more deliberate and cautious manner. Adaptive Staging may lead to longer periods in which the waste is more accessible to humans. If the time scales become very long (decades to centuries), then institutional stability cannot be guaranteed. In this case, security could become a concern. However, even under the most optimistic waste emplacement schedules, significant amounts of wastes are likely to remain at reactor storage sites for decades.15 Furthermore, waste must be transported to the repository site regardless of how the repository program is organized. If rapid removal of high-level waste from surface storage at reactor sites is considered to be necessary to address terrorist threats, then other solutions beyond a geologic repository program will have to be considered. From this perspective there appears to be no significant difference in impact on security between Adaptive Staging and Linear Staging.

4.10 Impact on the regulatory framework

Adaptive Staging has the following impacts on the regulatory framework:

  • it increases regulatory review steps;

  • it requires flexibility from the regulator in formulating and applying regulation;

  • it requires flexibility in the license amendment process;

  • it provides the regulator with increased flexibility to amend regulations if experience warrants; and

15  

In the United States anticipated quantities of spent nuclear fuel exceed the statutory limit of the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain (see Chapter 5).

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
  • in enhances stakeholder confidence in the regulatory process by increasing transparency.

To the extent that repository design, construction, and operation options are kept open beyond the initial license application, the licensing process with Adaptive Staging might become more complex for both the implementer and the regulator— for example, if the implementer builds into the license application mechanisms to change the repository design and operating modes on the basis of information gathered during the early operational phase. In spite of the added complexity, Adaptive Staging may be beneficial to the regulatory framework. Regulating a first-of-a-kind repository is a process of gradual learning and refinement. This is recognized by the French safety authorities who have prepared a series of non-mandatory basic safety rules (règles fondamentales de sûreté) designed to evolve as new information becomes available. It is unrealistic to expect that a regulator can set forth regulations that would govern activities for over a century with no need for modification. For example, in the U.S. during the 20 years since enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, there have been at least two major changes16 in statutory requirements and major changes in the regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Department of Energy. The knowledge available at the time of construction authorization is less complete than in subsequent phases. The Adaptive Staging approach encourages the acquisition of additional knowledge and allows regulations to develop and to take account of new knowledge gained during the multi-decade repository development program. Adaptive Staging may, therefore, address the challenge of the “regulator’s dilemma,” which refers to the challenge of making regulatory decisions in the presence of uncertainties, some of which are not resolvable (NRC, 2001).

The staged approach to licensing allows the implementer to expand, and the regulator to review, the knowledge base and the safety case at each licensing phase. Adaptive Staging emphasizes the importance of providing a traceable and auditable record of decisions, thereby increasing the transparency of the licensing process. The regulator and implementer, therefore, have the opportunity to strengthen stakeholder confidence that the program is based on a robust disposal concept, good engineering and technology, and a suitable site.

Even when a particular country’s legal system requires prescriptive regulations for a repository, there is normally sufficient scope for flexibility at the level of detailed regulatory guidance, decision-making, and inspection programs. Adaptive Staging can be compatible with a regulatory system if that system is flexible and responsive to change. Adaptive Staging can be effectively applied only if the license amendment process is not overly complex or long, and the implementer has the possibility, if justified, to continue the program during the amendment process.

16  

The statutory changes are the 1987 amendment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

4.10.1 Regulatory obstacles

Adaptive Staging may place obstacles in the regulatory process for both the implementer and regulator (e.g., NRC, 2001). From the implementer’s point of view, Adaptive Staging may be seen as causing more intensive regulatory oversight, which may delay the repository program. From the regulator’s point of view, Adaptive Staging requires flexibility and acceptance of the uncertainty involved in permitting or licensing individual stages in a somewhat open-ended program, albeit one supported by a safety case for a full repository. The following are examples of regulatory drawbacks:

  • the alternative designs proposed in the license application may generate controversy about when construction would be considered substantially complete; and

  • if the licensing process freezes the repository design and its safety case, the implementer cannot further develop this design during the regulatory review process. If new information warrants a change to the reference design, the implementer must then request a license revision, which could extend significantly the review schedule.

4.10.2 Regulatory advantages

Adaptive Staging also has several regulatory advantages (e.g., NRC, 2001):

  • It may bring additional information to the regulator about the strengths and weaknesses in the safety case, thereby allowing the regulator to make decisions on the basis of better evidence.

  • As stated in regulatory documents from many countries (USNRC, 1998; ERA, 1999; HSK/KSA, 1993), proof that the proposed geologic repository meets any specific set of regulatory standards cannot be demonstrated in the ordinary sense of that word. In Adaptive Staging, this fact is accepted and communicated to regulators, implementers, stakeholders, and the general public. In turn, these parties can help identify additional uncertainties and suggest ways to address them. In this context, Adaptive Staging may provide additional confidence to stakeholders.

  • The openness inherent in Adaptive Staging may increase public trust in the regulator and by extension in the repository program. The regulatory body’s ability to adopt and utilize a less prescriptive system that involves more judgment is tied to the degree of trust that body enjoys with the broad public. The more trust, the more deference is afforded the regulatory body to exercise judgment instead of relying on prescriptive “yes or no” findings, and the more likely is public acceptance of the regulator’s decisions.

4.11 Impact on the institutional and societal context

Adaptive Staging has the following impacts on the institutional and societal context:

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
  • opportunities for societal and institutional learning;

  • opportunities to increase trust in the implementing institution; and

  • opportunities to test mechanisms for stakeholder and public involvement.

A change of the implementer’s organizational culture may be required to implement Adaptive Staging in the repository program. Learning will be minimal unless the implementer actively seeks out alternative viewpoints, openly acknowledges errors and uncertainties, specifically addresses societal issues, and organizes and undertakes relevant research to improve the knowledge base. In recent decades, managers of large-scale technological systems have often encountered societal and political resistance, which generates gridlock. The management of nuclear waste is an example of technology gridlock. No country has achieved a satisfactory solution to the disposal of high-level waste, despite considerable and costly efforts (NRC, 2001; Rosa and Clark, 1999). However, sustained progress in some countries provides indications that programs may succeed.

One cause of gridlock is lack of public trust. Public acceptance of the choice for disposal of high-level nuclear waste depends on trust in the implementer and the regulator. Lack of trust is, in part, a result of the gap in technological understanding between scientists and lay people. One of the challenges to implementers and regulators is the inherent asymmetry in trust.

4.11.1 Mechanisms for stakeholder involvement

Stakeholder input to the decision-making process is of paramount importance for effective implementation of Adaptive Staging. Adaptive Staging encourages and explicitly calls for interaction with stakeholders and the general public at Decision Points (see Figures 2.1a, b, and c). The 1996 National Research Council report, Understanding Risk, concluded that active public participation from the outset and throughout the decision-making process is essential to managing risks (NRC, 1996). That report makes explicit the delineation of the relationship between analysis and deliberation and the central role played by interested and affected parties. Adaptive Staging’s Decision Points have elements in common with the deliberative-analytic process described in the 1996 report. The same report also discusses challenges of including stakeholders in the decision-making process.

This challenge is summarized in the recommendation to “get the right participation and get the participation right.” Getting the right participation means that the decision-making process should have sufficiently broad participation to ensure that important, decision-relevant information enters the process, that all important perspectives are considered, and that the parties’ legitimate concerns about inclusiveness and openness are met. Getting the participation right means that the decision-making process should satisfy most parties, including stakeholders, that it is responsive to their needs; that their information, viewpoints, and concerns have been adequately presented and taken into account; that parties have been adequately consulted; and that their participation has been able to affect the way risk problems are defined and understood (NRC, 1996; p. 7).

The need for public confidence to achieve successful implementation of radioactive waste management is also recognized by the International Association for the Environmentally Safe Disposal of Radioactive Materials (EDRAM):

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

“There seems to be a widespread awareness among EDRAM members that greater public confidence is needed for the successful implementation of radwaste [radioactive waste] management. The stepwise approach has been adopted to varying degrees, and there is a growing awareness that it will facilitate the work involved in gaining public confidence… Most of the EDRAM countries share an emphasis on the need for public acceptance of the radwaste management system, and different methods are suggested for creating public confidence:

  • good relations with the public,

  • creation of local partnership with different stakeholders at local level,

  • transparency in the decision-making process,

  • public review of documents and plans,

  • distribution of materials to all parties and the creation of information strategies,

  • local information offices at feasibility study sites and site tours,

  • changes in internal organisation to make openness the key concept for all employees,

  • feedback mechanisms for every phase of the process,

  • issue-specific voting and the creation of ad-hoc groups for discussion,

  • stepwise and flexible approach involving discrete and explicit implementation steps,

  • progressivity and reversibility of the implementation process,

  • retrievability of the waste,

  • postponed final decisions, which means that there is ample opportunity for knowledge dissemination, discussion, and reflection” (EDRAM, 2002; pp. 13–14).

The above list bears many similarities to Adaptive Staging. Adaptive Staging can address the issue of public acceptance because of its cautious approach, its structured flexibility, its scheduled periods for reflection and decision-making, and its openness to assimilating all relevant data—including societal and political data. Specifically, Adaptive Staging’s attributes of flexibility, transparency, auditability, and responsiveness provide a set of principles and a mechanism for interactive, iterative stakeholder involvement.

The committee is not in a position to specify the appropriate “mechanisms” ensuring effective stakeholder and general public participation. Adaptive Staging provides opportunities to test the effectiveness of possible methods for stakeholder involvement. The committee suggests that a stakeholder advisory board be formed and a research program formulated for determining the optimum mechanism for public participation (see Sidebar 4.2).

The committee acknowledges that changing methods of stakeholder and/or general public involvement can undermine the implementer’s or regulator’s reputation for constancy and consistency. Parties who are not already involved in the program are an important audience for an organization’s behavior. It is especially difficult to educate this more distant audience about the experimental character of an organization’s behavior. Therefore, social science work needs to be an integral component of the overall process of developing a successful repository program. In parallel with engineering activities and throughout the program phases, social science work is also included in Adaptive Staging.

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

Adaptive Staging addresses the challenge of public concern and controversy by providing opportunities for the implementer to demonstrate competence and integrity. Adaptive Staging can also provide additional opportunities to build public trust in the capabilities of the implementing institution to fulfill very long-term responsibilities. Finally, Adaptive Staging’s commitment to systematic learning in the social sciences recognizes directly that implementing a repository presents both societal and technical challenges.

It is impossible to foresee the outcome of Adaptive Staging on public concerns, any opposition, or controversy. The following are examples of possible negative outcomes:

  1. Adaptive Staging may be perceived as self-serving. That is, stakeholders may perceive Adaptive Staging as a stratagem to develop a specific site or to begin waste emplacement prematurely, thus decreasing trust.

  2. Experimentation with mechanisms of stakeholder involvement may undermine public trust by showing the implementer to be an organization that lacks constancy.

  3. Adaptive Staging provides stakeholders opposed to the repository program additional opportunities to deliberately delay the program (with obstructions at Decision Points).

  4. Public trust in the institution may never be achieved, even if adaptable staging is implemented, especially if there already exists a climate of institutional distrust.

4.12 Summary of potential benefits and drawbacks of Adaptive Staging

Do the benefits of Adaptive Staging outweigh the potential drawbacks for the implementer? Potential benefits and drawbacks of Adaptive Staging compared to Linear Staging are summarized below.

4.12.1 Potential Benefits of Adaptive Staging

The committee’s position in favor of Adaptive Staging is based upon the following considerations:

  • Programmatic: Adaptive Staging is a logical approach for managing complicated projects. When the project is divided into smaller stages with the possibility of reversal, the decision-making process can become more manageable. Adaptive Staging allows decision-making only on those stages of repository development where knowledge is available (near-term stages), thus keeping options open for the future. Its flexibility attribute could help the implementer react to unavoidable “technical surprises” and unavoidable political, economic, or societal surprises. Its incremental nature could also help the implementer identify problems early, problems that may become difficult to rectify at later stages. It also allocates sufficient effort and time for quantification and analysis of the relative risks of different options.

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
  • Technical: Adaptive Staging allows for learning and incorporating new technical data not only throughout repository development, but also after the waste is in place. For instance, it encourages the implementer to develop long-term monitoring and science and technology programs. Data from these long-term programs could improve scientific and engineering understanding of the repository system behavior.

  • Regulatory: Because of Adaptive Staging’s increased number of transparent, auditable Decision Points, regulators are able to evaluate the program more often. Adaptive staging provides the regulator with better oversight of the repository design, operations, and safety.

  • Institutional: Adaptive Staging could help build public trust in the capabilities of the implementing institution to fulfill very long-term responsibilities because it allows many opportunities for the implementer to demonstrate competence and integrity.

  • Societal: Allowing stakeholder participation in the decision-making process can make the repository program more credible and trustworthy. Previous National Research Council committees have discussed the benefits of broad public participation in governmental agencies’ decision-making processes (NRC, 1994, 1996, 2001).

4.12.2 Potential Drawbacks of Adaptive Staging

The committee also has identified potential programmatic, technical, regulatory, institutional, and societal drawbacks of Adaptive Staging:

  • Programmatic: Adaptive Staging calls for financial investments without a “guarantee” that any of the potential future stages in the process will be reached. Adaptive Staging may also extend the time scale needed for full-scale operation of the repository, thereby changing surface buffer storage requirements and other factors, such as costs. Adaptive Staging may also encourage funding organizations to release funding only in limited allocations that can make the implementer’s planning more difficult.

  • Technical: Adaptive Staging may lead to longer periods in which the waste is more accessible to humans. If the time scales become very long (centuries) then institutional stability cannot be guaranteed. In this case, workers could be exposed to higher doses of radiation and security concerns could increase.

  • Regulatory: More intensive regulatory oversight may delay the repository program. Moreover, Adaptive Staging requires flexibility and acceptance of the regulatory risks involved in permitting or licensing individual stages in an open-ended program.

  • Institutional: Stakeholders may perceive Adaptive Staging as a stratagem to develop a specific site or to begin waste emplacement prematurely, thus decreasing trust. Public trust in the institution may never be achieved, even if Adaptive Staging is implemented, especially if there already exists a climate of institutional distrust. Adaptive Staging may require changes in the culture and management practices of the implementer that may be difficult to achieve in practice.

  • Societal: Implementers are often strongly technically oriented; therefore, commitment to social science research and to the development of effective

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"4. Impacts of Adaptive Staging on a Repository Program." National Research Council. 2003. One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10611.
×
Page 98
Next: 5. Specific Applications to the Yucca Mountain Project »
One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $57.00 Buy Ebook | $45.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Compared to other large engineering projects, geologic repositories for high-level waste present distinctive challenges because: 1) they are first-of-a-kind, complex, and long-term projects that must actively manage hazardous materials for many decades: 2) they are expected to hold these hazardous materials passively safe for many millennia after repository closure; and 3) they are widely perceived to pose serious risks. As is the case for other complex projects, repository programs should proceed in stages.

One Step at a Time focuses on a management approach called "adaptive staging" as a promising means to develop geologic repositories for high-level radioactive waste such as the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Adaptive staging is a learn-as-you-go process that enables project managers to continuously reevaluate and adjust the program in response to new knowledge and stakeholder input. Advice is given on how to implement staging during the construction, operation, closure, and post-closure phases of a repository program.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!