Decision Making for Complex Socio-Technical Systems Robustness from Lessons Learned in Long-Term Radioactive Waste Governance

2007 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 171
Author(s):  
Wayne Corneil
2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 353-359
Author(s):  
Anna Timofiejczuk ◽  
Jaroslaw Brodny ◽  
Andrzej Loska

Abstract The article is a review of completed research on developed and implemented innovative and technologically advanced technical systems. According to the Industry 4.0 concept they can have a significant impact on the efficiency of production processes and product development. In this perspective, the key aspect seems to be maintenance management of technical systems, realized both in the operate phase as well as during service and repair works. There were discussed research results of authors and developed application solutions supporting decision-making processes, in terms of three main periods of realization of exploitation processes: short, medium and long-term.


Author(s):  
Ian Upshall

The creation and subsequent access to accurate information is widely accepted as a vital component of a national radioactive waste management strategy. Information on the origin and quantity of the waste together with its physical, chemical and radiological characteristics provides a catalyst for sound and transparent decision making. This information will originate from a number of potentially disparate sources, including material manufacturers, facility operators, waste producers, Government and Non-Government organisations and regulators. The challenge to those with a role in information management in further increased by the fact that much of the information created is required to support activities, not only in the immediate future, but also in the longer-term — typically many decades or even centuries. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has published a number of guidance documents under the Safety Series, one of which makes direct reference to information management. The document [1] is intended to assist Member States in the development of a national system for radioactive waste management and identifies the key responsibilities and essential features of such a system. The following statement appears in Section 5: “The regulatory body, the waste generators and the operators of radioactive waste management facilities should maintain documentation and records consistent with the legal requirements and their own needs.” An essential requirement of these ‘documents and records’ is that they should be “...kept in a condition that will enable them to be consulted and understood later by people different from, and possibly without reference to, those who generated the records ...” The scope of the documentation and records to be kept will be wide ranging but will include “...an inventory of radioactive waste, including origin, location, physical and chemical characteristics, and, as appropriate a record of radioactive waste removed or discharged from a facility”, and “site plans, engineering drawings, specifications and process descriptions ... radioactive waste package identification ...”. It is has long been recognised in the United Kingdom that the management of radioactive waste will require the assembly and secure retention of a diversity of records and data. This information will be needed to inform the strategic decision making process, thus contributing to the future safe, environmentally sound and publicly acceptable management of radioactive waste. In the meantime it will also service the nation’s international commitments. When the planning application for a Rock Characterisation Facility (RCF) was refused and the subsequent Nirex appeal rejected in 1997, it was recognised that transfer of waste to a national repository was ulikely to take place for many decades. The long-term preservation of information by the waste management organisations thus became an issue. Since this time, the UK nuclear industry, including the waste producers, regulators and other Government Departments have worked together to develop a common information management system that is now being implemented. It is based on an Oracle database and is supported by ‘electronic tools’ designed to facilitate entry and retrieval of data in a common format. Long-term access to these data underpins many aspects of the system design. Designing such a system and seeing through its development has been a challenge for all those involved. However, as the project nears the completion of the development phase, it is clear there are several benefits in this approach. These include a sharing of best practice, shared development costs, an improved understanding of the needs of all parties, and the use of a common platform and tools. The ‘partnership approach’ between waste management organisations, Government departments and regulators will also reduce the likelihood of future surprises or conflicts of interest. Industry-wide co-operation also provides a greater degree of confidence that the system will continue to enjoy technical and financial support for the foreseeable future. The British Radwaste Information Management System (BRIMS) is supported by the principal waste producers, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) and United Kingdom Nirex Limited (Nirex). All organisations that have participated in its development over the past seven years have free access to it and may use it as part of their waste management strategy.


Author(s):  
Elizabeth Atherton ◽  
Ann McCall

Nirex is the organisation responsible for long-term radioactive waste management in the UK. Our Mission is to provide the UK with safe, environmentally sound and publicly acceptable options for the long-term management of radioactive materials. One of the lessons that Nirex has learned from previous experience in the UK and internationally is the importance of developing due process for finding a long-term solution for radioactive waste management. We have been investigating best practice in this area and incorporating the findings into the work that we undertake. Projects which will have an impact on the environment are subject to EC Directives on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The EIA Directive has already been implemented into law within Member States while the SEA Directive has to be implemented by 2004. Nirex believes that radioactive waste management programmes will have to adhere to the principles outlined in the Directives. Nirex has been investigating how the frameworks set out in the Directives could be used to: • Develop a stepwise approach to decision making in the UK; • Engage stakeholders during the stepwise decision making; • Enable stakeholders’ issues and concerns to be addressed. This paper will outline how Nirex has been developing its work in these areas including reference to the Nirex Involvement Programme, which uses different consultation and dialogue techniques to enable people to engage with Nirex’s work programme.


Author(s):  
Jacques Cantarella ◽  
Brigitte Roger

The safe management of a country’s radioactive substances in both the short and the long term implies a cost to its present society and necessitates financial resources to cover these costs. Once they are needed, these financial resources may prove to be insufficient or even completely lacking, leading to a nuclear liability. By virtue of article 9 of the Belgian law of 12th December 1997, the Belgian Government wishes to avoid the occurrence of such nuclear liabilities. This law charges ONDRAF/NIRAS, the Belgian Agency for Radioactive Waste and Enriched Fissile Materials with the mission to draw up a register of the localisation and the state of all nuclear sites and all sites containing radioactive substances, to estimate the costs of their decommissioning and remediation, to evaluate the existence and adequacy of the provisions for financing these future or current operations and to update the resulting inventory of nuclear liabilities on a five-yearly basis. This paper outlines the methodology put in place by ONDRAF/NIRAS to accomplish this assignment and highlights some of the results of this third inventory. It then focuses on the main recommendations ONDRAF/NIRAS made to the Belgian Government on the field of avoiding potential nuclear liabilities.


Author(s):  
C. Parotte

In Belgium, the long-term management of radioactive waste is under the exclusive competence of the Belgian Agency for Radioactive Waste and Enriched Fissile Materials (knew as ONDRAF/NIRAS). Unlike low-level waste, no institutional policy has yet been formally approved for the long-term management of high level and/or long-lived radioactive waste (knew as B&C waste). In this context, ONDRAF/NIRAS considers the public and stakeholders’ participation as an essential factor in the formulation of an effective and legitimate policy. This is why it has decided to integrate them in different ways during the elaboration of the Waste Plan (ONDRAF/NIRAS-document containing guidelines to make a principled policy decision about nuclear waste management). To do so, social scientists have been regularly mobilized either as external evaluators, follow-up committee members, or participatory observants. Hence, the Waste Plan is only the first step in a long decision-making process. For a PhD student under contract with ONDRAF/NIRAS, this mandate consists of thinking out a way to construct an inter-organizational innovative communication system that would be participative, transparent and embedded in a long-term perspective, thus integrating all the further legal steps to take throughout the decision-making process. In this regard, two paradoxical constraints must be taken into account: on the one hand, my own influence on the legal decision-making process should remain limited, because of a series of constraints, lock-ins and previous decisions which have to be respected; on the other hand, ONDRAF/NIRAS expects the research conclusions to be policy relevant and useful. In this paper, the purpose is twofold. Firstly, the issues raised by this policy mandate is an opportunity to question the performative dimensions of the social scientist in the decision-making process and, more specifically, to have a reflexive view on our position as PhD Student. Secondly, assuming the role of “embarked” social scientist, numerous of answers will discuss to face the different dilemmas of the researcher “in action”. Those reflections follow on, among others, those from previous papers discussed in Quimper in April 2013 [1] and in Leuven in June 2013 [2].


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document