Nuclear Engineering and Technology

  • 제48권2호
  • /
  • Pages.495-504
  • /
  • 2016
  • /
  • 1738-5733(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-358X(eISSN)
한국원자력학회 (Korean Nuclear Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Approach to Improve Romanian Geological Repository Planning

  • 투고 : 2015.08.26
  • 심사 : 2015.11.11
  • 발행 : 2016.04.25
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

International standards recommend typical phases to be included within any national program for the development of a geological repository dedicated to disposal of the high level radioactive wastes generated in countries using nuclear power. However, these are not universally applicable and the content of each of these phases may need to be adapted for each national situation and regulatory and institutional framework. Several national geological repository programs have faced failures in schedules and have revised their programs to consider an adapted phased management approach. The authors have observed that in the case of those countries in the early phases of a geological repository program where boundary conditions have not been fully defined, international recommendations for handling delays/failures in the national program might not immediately help. This paper considers a case study of the influences of the national context risks on the current planning schedule of the Romanian national geological repository. It proposes an optimum solution for an integrated response to any significant adverse impact arising from these risks, enabling sustainable program planning.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. International Atomic Energy Agency, Geological disposal facilities for radioactive waste, Safety Standards Series No. SSG-14, Vienna, 2011.
  2. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development/Nuclear Energy Agency, The Economics of the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Paris, France, 2013.
  3. V. Andrei, I. Prisecaru, How important is the national context in planning Romanian geological disposal?, 7th Annual Conference on Sustainable Development through Nuclear Research and Education, Nuclear 2014 Conference, Pitesti-Mioveni, Romania, May 28-30, 2014.
  4. G. L. Eriksson, A "Smorgasbord" of lessons learned during 32 years of siting and developing deep geological disposal systems for long-lived, highly-radioactive, wastes, Proc. 36th Annual Radioactive Waste Management Symposium, WM 2010, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, March 7-11, 4 (2010) 2702-2716.
  5. Official Journal of European Communities, Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom of 19 July 2011 establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste L199, 2.8.2011, Brussels.
  6. M. Radu, A. Panait, G. Barariu, G. Negut, The impact of the nuclear program development in Romania of the national radwastes management strategy, Revista "Energia Nucleara", Bucuresti 23 (2011) 25-29.
  7. V. Andrei, I. Prisecaru, The use of PESTEL analysis in development of the Romanian geological repository, U.P.B. Sci. Bull. Series C 76 (2014) 247-254.
  8. V. Andrei, I. Prisecaru, Risk management process for national geological repository program, Proc. WEC Central & Eastern Europe Regional Energy Forum, twelveth ed., FOREN 2014, June 22-26, Paper s3-45-en, 2014, pp. 1-8.
  9. Project Management Institute, A guide to the project management body of knowledge, Project Management Body of Knowledge Guide, American National Standard Institute/Project Management Institute 99-001-2008, Newtown Square, USA, fourth ed., 2008, pp. 146-157.
  10. The Authority for Total Cost Management - AACE International, Integrated cost and schedule risk analysis using Monte Carlo simulation of a CPM model, Recommended Practice No.57R-09, Morgantown, WV, USA, 2011, pp. 11-13.
  11. S. Ward, C. Chapman, Transforming project risk management into project uncertainty management, Int. J. Project Manage. 21 (2003) 97-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00080-1
  12. V. Andrei, I. Prisecaru, The study of the national context-A need when planning a National Geological Repository, European Safety and Reliability Society Newsletter, June 2015, pp. 1-2.
  13. V. Andrei, I. Prisecaru, The study of the national context in support of planning geological disposal in Romania, Proc. Int. Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants, ICAPP 2015, Nice, France, May 3-6, Paper 15232, 2015, pp. 2701-2709.
  14. International Atomic Energy Agency, The International Intercomparison and Harmonisation Project on demonstrating the safety of geological disposal [Internet]. GEOSAF, Working Material, 2011 [cited 2015 Nov 27]. Available from: http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/rw/projects/geosaf/draft-final-report.pdf.
  15. L. Galway, Quantitative risk analysis for project management. A critical review, WR-112-RC, Working Paper, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, USA, 2004, pp. 8-10.
  16. P. Leach, Modeling uncertainty in project scheduling [Internet]. Proc. 2005 Crystal Ball User Conference [cited 2015 Nov 27], 2005. Available from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.111.2962&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
  17. K. Awati, An introduction to Monte Carlo simulation of project tasks [Internet]. Eight to Late, WordPress.com, 2009 [cited 2015 Nov 27]. Available from: http://eight2late.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/an-introduction-to-monte-carlosimulation-of-project-tasks/.
  18. E.C. Plandis, RD&D planning towards geological disposal of radioactive waste [Internet]. Guidance for less-advanced programmes, Guide for RDD Planning Draft V0.4, 2015 [cited 2015 Nov 27]. Available from: http://www.igdtp.eu/index.php/secretariat/sec-igd-2/news/110-announcement-plandis-2015.
  19. Espoo Convention, Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, United Nations, 1991.