Certifying the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: Lessons Learned from the WIPP211 Experience

摘要

In May 1998, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) certified the US211u001eDepartment of Energy's (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) as being in 211u001ecompliance with applicable long-term regulations governing the permanent disposal 211u001eof spent nuclear fuel, high-level, and transuranic radioactive wastes. The WIPP 211u001eis the first deep geologic repository in the US to have successfully demonstrated 211u001eregulatory compliance with long-term radioactive waste disposal requirements. The 211u001efirst disposal of TRU waste at WIPP occurred on March 26, 1999. Many of the 211u001elessons learned during the WIPP Project's transition from site characterization 211u001eand experimental research to the preparation of a successful application may be 211u001eof general interest to other repository programs. During a four-year period (1992 211u001eto 1996), the WIPP team (including the DOE Carlsbad Area Office (CAO), the 211u001escience advisor to CAO, Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), and the management 211u001eand operating contractor of the WIPP site, Westinghouse Electric Corporation 211u001e(WID)) met its aggressive schedule for submitting the application without 211u001ecompromising the integrity of the scientific basis for the long-term safety of 211u001ethe repository. Strong leadership of the CAO-SNL-WID team was essential. Within 211u001eSNL, a mature and robust performance assessment (PA) allowed prioritization of 211u001eremaining scientific activities with respect to their impact on regulatory 211u001ecompliance. Early and frequent dialog with EPA staff expedited the review process 211u001eafter the application was submitted. Questions that faced SNL are familiar to 211u001egeoscientists working in site evaluation projects. What data should be gathered 211u001eduring site characterization. How can we know when data are sufficient. How can 211u001ewe know when our understanding of the disposal system is sufficient to support 211u001eour conceptual models. What constitutes adequate 'validation' of conceptual 211u001emodels for processes that act over geologic time. How should we use peer review 211u001eand expert judgment. Other lessons learned by SNL and the WIPP team are more 211u001especific to the regulatory context of the project and the demands imposed by 211u001epervasive review by the regulator and other external organizations. How should we 211u001edocument the relationship between site data and the parameter values used in 211u001ecomputer models. How can we manage software configuration and use it to support 211u001ethe regulatory requirement that analyses be traceable and reproducible. Can we 211u001einstitute a quality assurance (QA) program that will meet the regulatory 211u001erequirements and enhance the process without unreasonable budget and schedule 211u001eimpacts. How can we resolve technical disputes, both within the project and with 211u001eexternal critics. How should we involve regulators and stakeholders in the 211u001ecompliance process. The WIPP teams answers to these questions, and others like 211u001ethem, were, in many cases, pragmatic solutions based on the needs of the pro-warn 211u001eat the time. Some problems encountered and their solutions may be of limited 211u001einterest. However, that it is possible to license a geologic repository in a 211u001eregulatory proceeding while incorporating meaningful public review and criticism 211u001eis a lesson of general interest to all radioactive waste management programs.