Nuclear waste as a socio-technical problem
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.32.2.50Keywords:
nuclear waste, intermediate storage, siting, radiological protection, multiple barriersAbstract
In public discussion, high-level nuclear waste is often referred to as an exceptional environmental problem. It is indeed an exceptional problem, but not primarily because of the permanent threat that nuclear waste poses to future generations, as is usually argued. Its exceptionality rather stems from socio-technical factors that create deadlocks and dilemmas, thus hampering and delaying decision-making. This article provides an overview of major socio-technical issues pertaining to nuclear waste, including some that have been neglected in previous literature, and thus contributes to technology assessment in this field.
References
Aarkrog, Asker et al. (1992): Sources of anthropogenic radionuclides in the Southern Ural. In: Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 15 (1), pp. 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/0265-931X(92)90043-S DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0265-931X(92)90043-S
Anon. (2016): Russia’s Mayak continues clean-up of Lake Karachai. In: Nuclear Engineering International News, 30. 11. 2016. Available online at https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsrussias-mayak-continues-clean-up-of-lake-karachai-5684170, last accessed on 08. 05. 2023.
Arslan, Marc (2009): MOX fuel recycling. Present status and prospects. In: Société française d’énergie nucléaire – SFEN (eds.): Proceedings of the GLOBAL 2009 congress – The Nuclear Fuel Cycle. Sustainable Options and Industrial Perspectives, p. 92. Available online at https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:40092100, last accessed on 08. 05. 2023.
Barnosky, Anthony et al. (2012): Approaching a state shift in earth’s biosphere. In: Nature 486, pp. 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11018 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11018
Barron, Robert; Hill, Mary (2019): A wedge or a weight? Critically examining nuclear power’s viability as a low carbon energy source from an intergenerational perspective. In: Energy Research and Social Science 50, pp. 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.10.012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.10.012
Barthe, Yannick; Elam, Mark; Sundqvist, Göran (2020): Technological fix or divisible object of collective concern? Histories of conflict over the geological disposal of nuclear waste in Sweden and France. In: Science as Culture 29 (2), pp. 196–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2019.1645108 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2019.1645108
Beck, Silke; Oomen, Jeroen (2021): Imagining the corridor of climate mitigation. What is at stake in IPCC’s politics of anticipation? In: Environmental Science and Policy 123, pp. 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.05.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.05.011
Berg, Margarita; Hassel, Thomas (2022): Challenges in communicating the future of high-level radioactive waste disposal. What future are we talking about? In: TATuP – Journal for Technology Assessment in Theory and Practice 31 (3), pp. 18–23. https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.31.3.18 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.31.3.18
Borger, Julian (2022): Safety of Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant hangs in the balance. In: The Guardian, 12. 12. 2022. Available online at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/12/safety-of-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-hangs-in-the-balance, last accessed on 08. 05. 2023.
Bundesministerium der Justiz (2017): Gesetz zur Suche und Auswahl eines Standortes für ein Endlager für hochradioaktive Abfälle (StandAG.). Standortauswahlgesetz vom 5. 05. 2017. Berlin: Bundesministerium der Justiz. Available online at https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/standag_2017/BJNR107410017.html, last accessed on 08. 05. 2023.
Dellsén, Finnur (2021): Consensus versus unanimity. Which carries more weight? In: British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, p. 718273. https://doi.org/10.1086/718273 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/718273
Eisler, Ronald (2004): Mercury hazards from gold mining to humans, plants, and animals. In: Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 181, pp. 139–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-21733-9_4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-21733-9_4
EU – European Union (2017): Regulation 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on mercury. In: Official Journal of the European Union, 24. 5. 2017. Available online at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017R0852&rid=7, last accessed on 08. 05. 2023.
Faurby, Søren et al. (2022): The counteracting effects of anthropogenic speciation and extinction on mammal species richness and phylogenetic diversity. In: Global Ecology and Biogeography 31 (9), pp. 1810–1823. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13560 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13560
Feiveson, Harold; Mian, Zia; Ramana, M.; von Hippel, Frank (2011): Managing nuclear spent fuel. Policy lessons from a 10‑country study. In: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 27. 06. 2011. Available online at https://thebulletin.org/2011/06/managing-nuclear-spent-fuel-policy-lessons-from-a-10-country-study, last accessed on 08. 05. 2023.
Frenay, Sacha; Parotte, Céline (2022): No time to waste. Exploring timeprints of radioactive waste management options in Belgium. In: TATuP – Journal for Technology Assessment in Theory and Practice 31 (3), pp. 24–30. https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.31.3.24 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.31.3.24
Hansson, Sven Ove (2009): Waste management. In: Baird Callicott and Robert Frodeman (eds.): Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, pp. 387–389.
Hansson, Sven Ove (2010): Technology and the notion of sustainability. In: Technology in Society 32 (4), pp. 274–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2010.10.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2010.10.003
Hansson, Sven Ove (2023): Zero visions and other safety principles. In: Karin Edvardsson Björnberg, Sven Ove Hansson, Matts-Åke Belin and Claes Tingvall (eds.): The vision zero handbook. Theory, technology and management for a zero casualty policy. Cham: Springer, pp. 3–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23176-7_2-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23176-7_2-2
Hudson, Michael (2000): How interest rates were set, 2500 BC–1000 AD. Máš, tokos and fœnus as metaphors for interest accruals. In: Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 43 (2), pp. 132–161. https://doi.org/10.1163/156852000511259 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156852000511259
IAEA – International Atomic Energy Agency (2020): Nuclear technology review 2020. Publication no. GC(64)/INF/2. Vienna: IAEA. Available online at https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gc/gc64-inf2.pdf, last accessed on 08. 05. 2023.
Jensen, Mikael (2017): Radiation protection principles and development of standards for geological repository systems. In: Michael Apted and Joonhong Ahn (eds.): Geological repository systems for safe disposal of spent nuclear fuels and radioactive waste. Duxford: Woodhead, pp. 601–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100642-9.00021-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100642-9.00021-9
Kojo, Matti; Lehtonen, Markku; Litmanen, Tapio; Kiviluoma, Niina (2022): We have a solution. Delivering on the promise to take national responsibility for nuclear waste management. In: TATuP – Journal for Technology Assessment in Theory and Practice 31 (3), pp. 31–36. https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.31.3.31 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.31.3.31
Krall, Lindsay; Macfarlane, Allison; Ewing, Rodney (2022): Nuclear waste from small modular reactors. In: PNAS 119 (23), p. e2111833119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2111833119 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2111833119
Kumpula, Linda; Huhtanen, Iida; Palander, Salla; Ylä-Mella, Mia; Kuhmonen, Venla (2022): Hanteringen av använt kärnbränsle och radioaktivt avfall i Finland. Helsingfors: Arbets- och näringsministeriet.
Le, Trinh (2020): Spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal. An examination of spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal around the world. In: Stimson Explainer, Trade and Technology. Available online at https://www.stimson.org/2020/spent-nuclear-fuel-storage-and-disposal, last accessed on 08. 05. 2023.
Lenton, Timothy et al. (2019): Climate tipping points – too risky to bet against. In: Nature 575, pp. 592–595. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03595-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03595-0
Lersow, Michael; Waggitt, Peter (2020): Disposal of all forms of radioactive waste and residues. Long-term stable and safe storage in geotechnical environmental structures. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32910-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32910-5
Mikhailovskaya, Lyudmila; Karavaeva, Elena; Pozolotina, Vera; Degtyareva, E. V. (2002): Anthropogenic plutonium in soils of the Ural region. In: Russian Journal of Nondestructive Testing 38 (4), pp. 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020913621780 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020913621780
OECD – Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2012): Reversibility and retrievability in planning for geological disposal of radioactive waste. Publication NEA no. 6993. Paris: OECD. Available online at https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/6993-proceedings-rr-reims.pdf, last accessed on 08. 05. 2023.
OECD (2020): Management and disposal of high-level radioactive waste. Global progress and solutions. Publication NEA no. 7532. Paris: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/33f65af2-en DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/33f65af2-en
Posiva SKB (2017): Safety functions, performance targets and technical design requirements for a KBS-3V repository. Conclusions and recommendations from a joint SKB and Posiva working group. Eurajoki: Posiva. Available online at https://www.skb.se/publikation/2485568/Posiva%2BSKB%2BReport%2B01.pdf, last accessed on 08. 05. 2023.
Rendall, Matthew (2019): Discounting, climate change, and the ecological fallacy. In: Ethics 129 (3), pp. 441–463. https://doi.org/10.1086/701481 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/701481
Rice, Kevin; Walker Jr., Ernest; Wu, Miaozong; Gillette, Chris; Blough, Eric (2014): Environmental mercury and its toxic effects. In: Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health 47 (2), pp. 74–83. https://doi.org/10.3961/jpmph.2014.47.2.74 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3961/jpmph.2014.47.2.74
Schwarz, Lucas (2022): Intergenerational justice starts now. Recognizing future generations in nuclear waste management. In: TATuP – Journal for Technology Assessment in Theory and Practice 31 (3), pp. 37–43. https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.31.3.37 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.31.3.37
Sierra, Rosa; Ott, Konrad (2022): Citizen participation in the long-term process of high-level radioactive waste disposal. Future tasks and adequate forms of participation. In: TATuP – Journal for Technology Assessment in Theory and Practice 31 (3), pp. 44–50. https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.31.3.44 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.31.3.44
Smeddinck, Ulrich; Eckhardt, Anne; Kuppler, Sophie (2022): Toward a repository for high-level radioactive waste. Perspectives and approaches. In: TATuP – Journal for Technology Assessment in Theory and Practice 31 (3), pp. 11–17. https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.31.3.11 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.31.3.11
Suess, Hans (1961): Fuel residuals and climate. In: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 17 (9), pp. 374–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.1961.11454272 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.1961.11454272
Tondel, Martin; Lindahl, Lena (2019): Intergenerational ethical issues and communication related to high-level nuclear waste repositories. In: Current Environmental Health Reports 6, pp. 338–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-019-00257-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-019-00257-1
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Sven Ove Hansson
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
