Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Environmental Science
Waste Management and Disposal

Reversible Experiments: Putting Geological Disposal to the Test

Profile image of Jan Peter BergenJan Peter Bergen

2016, Science and Engineering Ethics

https://doi.org/10.1007/S11948-015-9697-2
visibility

…

description

27 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Conceiving of nuclear energy as a social experiment gives rise to the question of what to do when the experiment is no longer responsible or desirable. To be able to appropriately respond to such a situation, the nuclear energy technology in question should be reversible, i.e. it must be possible to stop its further development and implementation in society, and it must be possible to undo its undesirable consequences. This paper explores these two conditions by applying them to geological disposal of high-level radioactive waste (GD). Despite the fact that considerations of reversibility and retrievability have received increased attention in GD, the analysis in this paper concludes that GD cannot be considered reversible. Firstly, it would be difficult to stop its further development and implementation, since its historical development has led to a point where GD is significantly locked-in. Secondly, the strategy it employs for undoing undesirable consequences is less-than-ideal: it relies on containment of severely radiotoxic waste rather than attempting to eliminate this waste or its radioactivity. And while it may currently be technologically impossible to turn high-level waste into benign substances, GD’s containment strategy makes it difficult to eliminate this waste’s radioactivity when the possibility would arise. In all, GD should be critically reconsidered if the inclusion of reversibility considerations in radioactive waste management has indeed become as important as is sometimes claimed.

Related papers

Reflections on the Reversibility of Nuclear Energy Technologies
Jan Peter Bergen

2017

The development of nuclear energy technologies in the second half of the 20th century came with great hopes of rebuilding nations recovering from the devasta-tion of the Second World War or recently released from colonial rule. In coun-tries like France, India, the USA, Canada, Russia, and the United Kingdom, nuclear energy became the symbol of development towards a modern and technologically advanced future. However, after more than six decades of experi-ence with nuclear energy production, and in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, it is safe to say that nuclear energy production is not without its problems. Some of these problems have their origins in the very materiality of the technolo-gies involved. For example, not only does the use of highly radioactive materials give rise to risks for the current generation (e.g., in the potential for disaster when reactors melt down) but high-level radioactive waste from nuclear energy production presents a serious intergenera...

View PDFchevron_right
Alternatives to geological disposal of radioactive waste, by Hugues HENRI
hugues henri

Successive French governments (Sarkozy/Holland/Macron), under the influence of the pro-nuclear lobby and EDF, have imposed legislation imposing the questionable and non-reversible solution of burying radioactive waste in the CIGEO project promoted by ANDRA at Bure in the Meuse: Galleries dug 500 meters deep in clay veins would allow the storage of radioactive waste with medium and high activity and long life (several thousand or tens of thousands of years), after a trial period of a century at the end of which access would be definitively condemned. IRSN and ASN had expressed reservations about this definitive solution, regretting that it would not be reversible and would present fire risks for waste conditioned in bitumen.

View PDFchevron_right
Deep Geological Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Waste
B. Zelić

Handbook of Research on Advancements in Environmental Engineering

Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel (SF) and High-Level Waste (HLW) is one of the most important and challenging problems of the modern world. Otherwise a clean, cheap, constant, and secure way to produce electricity, nuclear power plants create large amounts of highly hazardous waste. Repositories—deep Geological Disposal Facilities (GDF)—for these types of waste must prevent radionuclides from reaching the biosphere, for up to 1,000,000 years, migrating from a deep (more than 300m), stable geological environment. At present, there are no operating GDFs for SF and/or HLW, mostly due to the difficult and complex task of preparing safety cases and licensing. The purpose of this chapter is to validate the generic R&D activities in this area and present alternative concepts of Radioactive Waste (RW) management: retrievability, reversibility, regional GDFs, long-term storage, and deep borehole disposal, demonstrating the main engineering tasks in solving the problem of RW management and di...

View PDFchevron_right
Nuclear Waste Politics: An Incrementalist Perspective
Matthew Cotton
View PDFchevron_right
Nuclear waste management
Waclaw Gudowski

Nuclear Physics A, 2005

View PDFchevron_right
Geological Disposal of Nuclear Waste: a Primer
Bruce Yardley

Elements, 2016

The back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle has become the Achilles Heel of nuclear power. After more than 50 years of effort, there are, at present, no operating nuclear waste repositories for the spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants or for the high-level waste from the reprocessing of spent fuel. This issue describes the status of geological disposal in salt, crystalline rock, clay, and tuff, as presently developed in five countries.

View PDFchevron_right
Rock Solid? A scientific review of geological disposal of high-level radioactive waste
Jan Haverkamp

2010

Box 6: Existing difficulties with geological repository programmes United Kingdom: A planning inquiry into a proposal to build the first stage (known as a 'Rock Characterisation Facility') of a deep repository for long-lived intermediate-level wastes led to the rejection of the plans in 1997. The planning inspector concluded that the site near Sellafield was 68,69,70 unsuitable for a repository for safety reasons. Various generic problems with deep disposal and the site selection process were also highlighted in the rejection of the plans. Although the proposal did not explicitly include high-level wastes, it was expected that the repository, if approved, would have been expanded to include these in the future. Following the advice of the 71 House of Lords Science and Technology Committee (which reportedly advocated returning to 72 the site ), the UK Government subsequently changed planning law so that in future the scientific 73 evidence concerning safety at a site would not be cross-examined. It is now seeking volunteer communities for a repository close to the original Sellafield site, with the intention of starting a new programme to develop a repository which would accommodate high-level wastes and spent nuclear fuel as well as intermediate-level wastes. A recent change in government may mean that the planning process is revised again.

View PDFchevron_right
Addressing the Long-Term Management of High-level and Long-lived Nuclear Wastes as a Socio-Technical Problem:Insights from InSOTEC
Meritxell Martell

2014

This report summarises the lessons to be drawn from the three-year collaborative social sciences research project ‘International Socio-Technical Challenges for implementing geological disposal’ (InSOTEC). Adopting an approach that is relatively novel in this context, the project focused its investigations on the complex interplay between what are typically seen as distinct technical and social dimensions of radioactive waste management (RWM), in particular in the context of the design and implementation of geological disposal. The aim of the InSOTEC project was not to arrive at a prescription for facilitating the implementation of geological disposal, but to foster and deepen the growing awareness of the interaction between social and technical aspects of RWM that has been evident within the technical expert community by providing stakeholders and experts of all kinds with a better understanding of the processes that shape the challenges which confront them. The report brings togeth...

View PDFchevron_right
Lessons from Nature - The behaviour of Technical and Natural Barriers in the Geological Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel
Nuria Marcos

2000

This work deals with the study of the long-term performance of materials and elements involved in the near-and far-field of an underground nuclear waste repository. Materials and elements occurring in nature are similar, or at least analogous, to the materials and elements manufactured or processed by man. Also, natural processes may be similar to those envisaged as occurring in a nuclear waste repository. This similarity makes it possible to study the behaviour of those materials in nature and to compare it with the behaviour of the manufactured materials to be used in a repository. As many materials and elements have been in the natural environment for long time periods (thousands to million of years), the data obtained can be extrapolated to estimate the future evolution of similar components in a nuclear waste repository. Thinking by analogy is the process of comparison, with those materials, elements and environments used to perform the studies that allow the comparison to be regarded as natural analogues.

View PDFchevron_right
Geologic Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste: Status, Key Issues, and Trends
Chin-fu Tsang

Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 2012

The permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste is one of the major technical hurdles that must be addressed if electrical power production by nuclear energy is to remain viable. The main challenge is that the waste must be effectively isolated from interactions with the biosphere for hundreds of thousands of years. A number of permanent disposal options have been proposed and reviewed by various countries and scientific organizations during the past few decades, and there appears to be a consensus today that mined geologic disposal is the most practical and effective method. Several variations on mined geologic disposal are being intensively studied by waste-producing countries. These investigations address a wide range of scientific questions, such as the behavior of geological and engineered barriers over time and the use of quantitative modeling and/or qualitative observational evidence to demonstrate the safety of disposal. The present review provides an overview of curr...

View PDFchevron_right

References (54)

  1. Aparicio, L. (Ed.) (2010). Making nuclear waste governable-Deep underground disposal and the challenge of reversibility. Andra. http://www.andra.fr/download/andra-international-en/document/ editions/381-va.pdf. Accessed April 15, 2013.
  2. Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The Economic Journal, 99(394), 116-131.
  3. Arthur, W. B. (1990). Positive feedbacks in the economy. Scientific American, 262, 92-99.
  4. Arthur, W. B. (1994). Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
  5. Barthe, Y. (2010). Nuclear waste: The meaning of decision-making. In L. Aparacio (Ed.), Making nuclear waste governable-Deep underground disposal and the challenge of reversibility. Andra. http:// www.andra.fr/download/andra-international-en/document/editions/381-va.pdf. Accessed April 15, 2013.
  6. Bergen, J. P. (in press). Irreversibility and reversibility of nuclear energy production technologies: A framework and three cases. Ethics, Policy and Environment.
  7. Bergmans, A. (2008). Meaningful communication among experts and affected citizens on risk: Challenge or impossibility? Journal of Risk Research, 11(1-2), 175-193.
  8. Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. (2012). Report to the secretary of energy. Washington, D.C. http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/04/f0/brc_finalreport_jan2012.pdf. Acces- sed 23 June 2014.
  9. Bonin, B. (2010). The scientific basis of nuclear waste management. In D. Cacuci (Ed.), Handbook of nuclear engineering. Springer Science & Business Media: New York, NY.
  10. Carter, J. (1977). ''Nuclear power policy statement on decisions reached following a review'', 7 April 1977. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. Accessed February 15, 2015.
  11. Clarfield, G. H., & Wiecek, W. M. (1984). Nuclear America: Military and civilian nuclear power in the United States, 1940-1980. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
  12. Conde ´, H., Andersson, T. L., Sandstro ¨m, R. & Norby, S. (2004). Partitioning, transmutation-An alternative to final disposal. An issue in focus. In Swedish National Council for Nuclear Waste, Nuclear Waste, State-of-the-Art Report 2004. Stockholm, Sweden. http://www.government.se/ content/1/c6/05/25/63/4b726e9d.pdf. Accessed August 18, 2014.
  13. Cowan, R. (1990). Nuclear power reactors: A study in technological lock-in. The Journal of Economic History, 50(3), 541-567.
  14. David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. The American Economic Review, 75(2), 332-337.
  15. David, P. A. (2001). Path dependence, its critics and the quest for ''historical economics''. In P. Garrouste & S. Ioannides (Eds.), Evolution and path dependence in economic ideas: Past and present. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
  16. David, P. A. (2007). Path dependence: A foundational concept for historical social science. Cliometrica, 1(2), 91-114.
  17. Foxon, T., & Pearson, P. (2008). Overcoming barriers to innovation and diffusion of cleaner technologies: Some features of a sustainable innovation policy regime. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(1), S148-S161.
  18. Frantzeskaki, N., & Loorbach, D. (2010). Towards governing infrasystem transitions: Reinforcing lock-in or facilitating change? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(8), 1292-1301.
  19. IAEA. (1956). The statute of the IAEA. https://www.iaea.org/about/statute. Accessed March 7, 2015. IAEA. (2006). Nuclear power and sustainable development, Vienna. https://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/ NE/Pess/assets/06-13891_NP&SDbrochure.pdf. Accessed March 7, 2015.
  20. IAEA. (2009). Classification of radioactive waste general safety guide. safety standards series No. GSG- 1, Vienna. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1419_web.pdf. Accessed April 12, 2015. Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management. (1978). Report to the president by the interagency review group on nuclear waste management. TID-28817. Washington, D.C.
  21. Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.-H. (2009). Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva, 47(2), 119-146.
  22. Kojo, M., Richardson, P., Oksa, A., & Miho ´k, P. (2013). The use of an added value approach during a repository development process: Exploring stakeholder views and concerns. http://www. ippaproject.eu/sites/default/files/deliverables/IPPA-Deliverable-4_3-20-dec-2013.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2014.
  23. Liebowitz, S. J., & Margolis, S. E. (1995). Path dependence, lock-in, and history. Journal of Law Economics Organization, 11(1), 205-226.
  24. Macfarlane, A. M., & Ewing, R. C. (Eds.). (2006). Uncertainty underground-Yucca mountain and the nation's high-level nuclear waste. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  25. Mahoney, J. (2007). Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society, 29(4), 507-548.
  26. Mckinley, I. G., Alexander, W. R., & Blaser, P. C. (2007). Development of geological disposal concepts. Radioactivity in the Environment, 9(6), 41-76.
  27. Metlay, D. (1985). Radioactive waste management policymaking. In U. S. Congress (Ed.), Office of technology assessment, managing the nation's commercial high-level radioactive waste. Washing- ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  28. Miller, H. S., Fahnoe, F., & Peterson, W. R. (1954). Survey of radioactive waste disposal practices. Nucleonics, 12(1), 68.
  29. National Research Council. (1957). The disposal of radioactive waste on land. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
  30. National Research Council. (1966). Review of radioactive waste disposal technology-Report to the division of reactor development and technology. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (1970). Disposal of solid radioactive wastes in bedded salt deposits. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
  31. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. (1995). The environmental and ethical basis of geological disposal of long-lived radioactive wastes. https://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/reports/1995/geodisp.html. Accessed October 10, 2014.
  32. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. (2011). Reversibility and (R&R) for the deep disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel. paris. http://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/rr/documents/RR- Final-Report_GD.pdf. Accessed October 15, 2013.
  33. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. Reversibility of decisions and retrievability of radioactive waste, Paris. http://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/reports/2012/7085-reversibility.pdf. Accessed October 15, 2013. Oregon Department of Energy. (2014). Hanford cleanup: The first 25 years. Salem, OR. http://www. oregon.gov/energy/NUCSAF/docs/Hanford25YearReportALL.pdf. Accessed April 12, 2015.
  34. Richardson, P., Michie, E., Minhans, A., Kallenbach-Herbert, B., & Andersson, K. (2011). The IPPA knowledge base. http://www.ippaproject.eu/sites/default/files/deliverables/IPPA-Deliverable-1_1. pdf. Accessed September 6, 2014.
  35. Scrase, I., & Smith, A. (2009). The (non-)politics of managing low carbon socio-technical transitions. Environmental Politics, 18(5), 707-726.
  36. Stewart, R. B., & Stewart, J. B. (2011). Fuel cycle to nowhere: US law and policy on nuclear waste. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
  37. Strauss, L.L. (1954). In Abundant power from atom seen; It will be too cheap for our children to meter, Strauss tells science writers, New York Times, (p. 5). September 17, 1954.
  38. Swedish National Council for Nuclear Waste. (2010). Nuclear waste state-of-the-art report 2010- Challenges for the final repository programme, Stockholm. http://www.karnavfallsradet.se/sites/ default/files/dokument/280352_SOU_2010_6_web.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2014.
  39. Taebi, B., & Kadak, A. C. (2010). Intergenerational considerations affecting the future of nuclear power: Equity as a framework for assessing fuel cycles. Risk Analysis, 30(9), 1341-1362.
  40. Taebi, B., & Kloosterman, J. L. (2008). To recycle or not to recycle? An intergenerational approach to nuclear fuel cycles. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(2), 177-200.
  41. U.K. Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. (2008). National policies on the long-term management of higher activity wastes. http://www.nda.gov.uk/publication/national-policies-on-the-long-term- management-of-higher-activity-wastes-april-2008/. Accessed Februari 15, 2015.
  42. U.K. Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. (2013). Geological disposal-How the world is dealing with its radioactive wastes. http://www.nda.gov.uk/publication/how-the-world-is-dealing-with-its- radioactive-wastes/. Accessed February 15, 2015.
  43. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. (1962). Civilian nuclear power: A report to the president, 1962. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  44. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. (1974). High-level radioactive waste management alternatives. WASH-1297. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, U.S. Depertment of Commerce.
  45. U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment. (1985). Managing the nation's commercial high-level radioactive waste. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  46. U.S. Department of Energy. (1991). A monitored retrievable storage facility: Technical background information. Washington, D.C. http://energy.gov/downloads/monitored-retrievable-storage- background. Accessed February 14, 2015.
  47. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (1975). Reactor safety study-An assessment of accident risks in U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. WASH-1400 (NUREG-75/014). Washington D.C.
  48. Van de Poel, I. (2011). Nuclear energy as a social experiment. Ethics, Policy and Environment, 14(3), 285-290.
  49. Vandenbosch, R., & Vandenbosch, S. E. (2007). Nuclear waste stalemate: Political and scientific controversies. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.
  50. Vergne, J. P., & Durand, R. (2011). The path of most persistence: An evolutionary perspective on path dependence and dynamic capabilities. Organization Studies, 32(3), 365-382.
  51. Walker, W. (1999). Nuclear entrapment: THORP and the politics of commitment. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.
  52. Walker, W. (2000). Entrapment in large technology systems: institutional commitment and power relations. Research Policy, 29(7-8), 833-846.
  53. Walker, J. S. (2009). The road to Yucca mountain: The development of radioactive waste policy in the United States. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  54. Weiss, W., Larsson, C.-M., McKenney, C., Minon, J.-P., Mobbs, S., Schneider, T., Umeki, H., Hilden, W., Pescatore, C., & Vesterlind, M. (2013). Radiological protection in geological disposal of long- lived solid radioactive waste. ICRP Publication 122. Annals of the ICRP, 42(3), 1-57.

Related papers

Reversed mining and reversed-reversed mining: the irrational context of geological disposal of nuclear waste
A. Van Loon

Earth-Science Reviews, 2000

Man does not only extract material from the Earth but increasingly uses the underground for storage and disposal purposes. One of the materials that might be disposed of this way is high-level nuclear waste. The development of safe disposal procedures, the choice of suitable host rocks, and the design of underground facilities have taken much time and money, but commissions in several countries have presented reports showing that-and how-safe geological disposal will be possible in such a way that definite isolation from the biosphere is achieved. Political views have changed in the past few years, however, and there is a strong tendency now to require that the high-level waste disposed of will be retrievable. Considering the underlying arguments for isolation from the biosphere, and also considering waste policy in general, this provides an irrational context. The development of new procedures and the design of new disposal facilities that allow retrieval will take much time again. A consequence may be that the high-active, heat-generating nuclear waste will be stored temporarily for a much longer time than objectively desirable. The delay in disposal and the counterproductive requirement of retrievability are partly due to the fact that earth-science organisations have failed to communicate in the way they should, Ž. Ž. possibly fearing public and financial reactions if taking a position that is was? considered as politically incorrect. Such an attitude should not be maintained in modern society, which has the right to be informed reliably by the scientific community.

View PDFchevron_right
Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste: Moving Towards Implementation
Eberhard Falck
View PDFchevron_right
Geological disposal of radioactive waste: underpinning science and technology
Nick Evans

Mineralogical Magazine, 2012

View PDFchevron_right
On the Uses and Disadvantages of History" for Radioactive Waste Management
Erik Laes

Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 2010

In this paper we propose a critical investigation of the founding assumptions for the legitimacy of the (internationally accepted) geological disposal option through a reading of Nietzsche's second untimely meditation "On the uses and disadvantages of history for life". In particular, we propose an interpretation of some of the central concepts in this text -History, the present, discourses and attitudes towards the past, etc. -and investigates in particular the effects of the confrontation between the Nietzschean concept of 'active forgetting' and present practices in the management of medium-and high-level long-lived radioactive waste (cat. B & C). Furthermore, we argue that this untimely meditation comes at a timely moment, i.e. at a time when modernity's way of dealing with waste could be undergoing a major transformation. The paper ends with some reflections on our nuclear inheritance and its link with nuclear power of the future (GenIV) inspired by Nietzsche.

View PDFchevron_right
Toward a repository for high-level radioactive waste: Perspectives and approaches
Sophie Kuppler

Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis, 2022

The stupendous time perspective of one million years, which is often associated with the disposal of high-level radioactive waste, opens up an immensely wide temporal horizon and an irritatingly vast future space. The dimensions of this period are significant because of the persistence of the radioactive hazard that in the case of disposal in an underground repository requires stability of geological formations encasing it. It is a problem, a task, a project that can to some extent be quantified and thought through, but that in a way is also unimaginable or even incomprehensible. Nevertheless, there is a need for action-in the distant future, but more urgently in the present. The future can be far away and present at the same time. This is certainly true for the final disposal of high-level radioactive waste. According to the law the siting decision for a final repository in Germany should be taken in the year 2031-though this time frame is considered unrealistic by now (see below). What appears to be the future in this country has already dawned in Switzerland. In our neighbouring country, a site has been proposed in September 2022. This marks the beginning of a new phase with its specific tasks and challenges. It is also very interesting to look at Finland, which was the first country in the world ever to realize a deep geological repository for highly radioactive waste from the civil use of nuclear energy. The future developments in Switzerland, the way emerging problems are handled there and the way they were handled in Finland-from a technical and societal point of view-thus (still) offer interesting insights for all the others who still have this phase ahead of them and want to prepare themselves.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Nuclear Wastes Management
  • Path Dependence
  • Social Experiments

    • Cited by

    Editors’ Overview: Experiments, Ethics, and New Technologies
    Neelke Doorn

    Science and Engineering Ethics, 2016

    View PDFchevron_right
    Responsible Innovation in light of Levinas: rethinking the relation between responsibility and innovation
    Jan Peter Bergen

    Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2017

    To date, much of the work on Responsible Innovation (RI) has focused on the 'responsible' part of RI. This has left the 'innovation' part in need of conceptual innovation of its own. If such conceptual innovation is to contribute to a coherent conception of RI, however, it is crucial to better understand the relation between responsibility and innovation first. This paper elucidates this relation by locating responsibility and innovation within Emmanuel Levinas' phenomenology. It structures his work into three 'stages', each described in terms of their leading experience and objectivation regime. This analysis identifies a need for constant innovation of political and technological systems, originating from and motivated by our responsibility to others. It also shows the relation between responsibility and innovation to be threefold: foundational, ethical and structural. These insights could help RI to avoid some pitfalls of 'regular' innovation, and provide moral grounding for important aspects of RI.

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved