A fascinating and authoritative account of the controversies and possibilities surrounding nuclear waste disposal, providing expert discussion in down-to-earth language.
During the next several years, decisions are expected to be made in several countries on the further development and implementation of the geological disposition option. The Board on Radioactive Waste Management (BRWM) of the U.S. National Academies believes that informed and reasoned discussion of relevant scientific, engineering and social issues can-and should-play a constructive role in the decision process by providing information to decision makers on relevant technical and policy issues. A BRWM-initiated project including a workshop at Irvine, California on November 4-5, 1999, and subsequent National Academies' report to be published in spring, 2000, are intended to provide such information to national policy makers both in the U.S. and abroad. To inform national policies, it is essential that experts from the physical, geological, and engineering sciences, and experts from the policy and social science communities work together. Some national programs have involved social science and policy experts from the beginning, while other programs have only recently recognized the importance of this collaboration. An important goal of the November workshop is to facilitate dialogue between these communities, as well as to encourage the sharing of experiences from many national programs. The workshop steering committee has prepared this discussion for participants at the workshop. It should elicit critical comments and help identify topics requiring in-depth discussion at the workshop. It is not intended as a statement of findings, conclusions, or recommendations. It is rather intended as a vehicle for stimulating dialogue among the workshop participants. Out of that dialogue will emerge the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the National Academies' report.
Experts from science, industry, and government discuss the unresolved scientific and technical issues surrounding the Yucca Mountain site as a geologic repository for high-level nuclear waste.
Focused attention by world leaders is needed to address the substantial challenges posed by disposal of spent nuclear fuel from reactors and high-level radioactive waste from processing such fuel. The biggest challenges in achieving safe and secure storage and permanent waste disposal are societal, although technical challenges remain. Disposition of radioactive wastes in a deep geological repository is a sound approach as long as it progresses through a stepwise decision-making process that takes advantage of technical advances, public participation, and international cooperation. Written for concerned citizens as well as policymakers, this book was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and waste management organizations in eight other countries.
This volume examines the national plans that ten Euratom countries plus Switzerland and the United States are developing to address high-level radioactive waste storage and disposal. The chapters, which were written by 23 international experts, outline European and national regulations, technology choices, safety criteria, monitoring systems, compensation schemes, institutional structures, and approaches to public involvement. Key stakeholders, their values and interests are introduced, the responsibilities and authority of different actors considered, decision-making processes are analyzed as well as the factors influencing different national policy choices. The views and expectations of different communities regarding participatory decision making and compensation and the steps that have been or are being taken to promote dialogue and constructive problem-solving are also considered.
How can nations ensure that buried nuclear waste goes undisturbed for thousands of years? The United States government tried to solve this problem with the help of experts they identified in communication, materials science, and futurism. From the perspective of a contemporary archaeologist, The Future of Nuclear Waste looks at what these experts suggested, and what the government endorsed: designs for a modern monument, an artificial ruin, a purpose-built archaeological site that would escape future exploration. One design, selected for development, argued that because specific archaeological sites and objects (among them Stonehenge, Serpent Mound, the Rosetta Stone, and rock art) made long ago have endured and are seen as significant today, contemporary engineers could build monuments that would be equally effective in conveying messages that last even longer. An alternative proposal, which government planners set aside, was rooted in the idea that universal archetypes of design arouse similar human emotions in all times and places. Both proposals used common sense, assuming that human reactions and understandings are relatively predictable. Employing an anthropology of common sense, Rosemary Joyce explores why people chosen for their expertise relied on generalizations contradicted by the actual history of preservation and interpretation of archaeological sites and the closest analogues to archetype-based designs, which are the large scale installations produced in the Land Art movement. The book reveals the underlying imagination shared by the experts, government planners, and artists, in which the American West is an empty space available for projects like these. It counters this with the dissenting voices of indigenous scholars and activists who document the presence on these nuclear landscapes of Native American people. The result is an eye-opening and unique demonstration of how a deep understanding of the remote past informs critical debates about the present.
The question of what to do with radioactive waste has dogged political administrations of nuclear-powered electricity-producing nations since the inception of the technology in the 1950s. As the issue rises to the forefront of current energy and environmental policy debates, a critical policy analysis of radioactive waste management in the UK provides important insights for the future. Nuclear Waste Politics sets out a detailed historical and social scientific analysis of radioactive waste management and disposal in the UK from the 1950s up to the present day; drawing international comparisons with Sweden, Finland, Canada and the US. A theoretical framework is presented for analysing nuclear politics: blending literatures on technology policy, environmental ethics and the geography and politics of scale. The book proffers a new theory of "ethical incrementalism" and practical policy suggestions to facilitate a fair and efficient siting process for radioactive waste management facilities. The book argues that a move away from centralised, high capital investment national siting towards a regional approach using deep borehole disposal, could resolve many of the problems that the high stakes, inflexible "megaproject" approach has caused across the world. This book is an important resource for academics and researchers in the areas of environmental management, energy policy, and science and technology studies.
A guide to long-term thinking: how to envision the far future of Earth. We live on a planet careening toward environmental collapse that will be largely brought about by our own actions. And yet we struggle to grasp the scale of the crisis, barely able to imagine the effects of climate change just ten years from now, let alone the multi-millennial timescales of Earth's past and future life span. In this book, Vincent Ialenti offers a guide for envisioning the planet's far future—to become, as he terms it, more skilled deep time reckoners. The challenge, he says, is to learn to inhabit a longer now. Ialenti takes on two overlapping crises: the Anthropocene, our current moment of human-caused environmental transformation; and the deflation of expertise—today's popular mockery and institutional erosion of expert authority. The second crisis, he argues, is worsening the effects of the first. Hearing out scientific experts who study a wider time span than a Facebook timeline is key to tackling our planet's emergency. Astrophysicists, geologists, historians, evolutionary biologists, climatologists, archaeologists, and others can teach us the art of long-termism. For a case study in long-term thinking, Ialenti turns to Finland's nuclear waste repository “Safety Case” experts. These scientists forecast far future glaciations, climate changes, earthquakes, and more, over the coming tens of thousands—or even hundreds of thousands or millions—of years. They are not pop culture “futurists” but data-driven, disciplined technical experts, using the power of patterns to construct detailed scenarios and quantitative models of the far future. This is the kind of time literacy we need if we are to survive the Anthropocene.
By the end of the Cold War, 45 years of weapons production and nuclear research had generated a sobering legacy: an astounding 1.7 trillion gallons of contaminated groundwater; 40 million cubic meters of tainted soil and debris; over 2,000 tons of intensely radioactive spent nuclear fuel; more than 160,000 cubic meters of radioactive and hazardous waste; and over 100 million gallons of liquid, high-level radioactive waste. After more than a decade of assessment, the Environmental Management Program estimated that it would need as much as $212 billion and 70 years to clean up the nuclear waste and contamination at 113 sites across the United States. By 2006, the Department of Energy had expended about $90 billion and greatly reduced risks from catastrophic accidents to both the public and its workers. Management of critical nuclear materials had become more efficient, secure, and accountable. Cleanup was complete at three relatively large and complex weapons productions sites, as well as many smaller ones. Yet many problems remain. Long-lived radioactive isotopes discharged into the soil will persist in slow migration, contaminating nearby groundwater. And while their potential for disastrous explosions has been virtually eliminated, storage tanks containing high-level waste will continue to deteriorate, posing further environmental risks. Long-term nuclear repositories will require unremitting management to protect future generations, and additional facilities still need to be developed. As in the past, public participation will be crucial. Lisa Crawford thought she lived across the road from an agricultural feed company--until one day in 1984, the Feed Materials Production Center inFernald, Ohio, released a toxic dust cloud. A year later, Lisa's well tested positive for excess uranium. She and several neighbors formed Fernald Residents for Environmental Safety and Health, or FRESH. We worked with people in the community and with our elected officials. When the government was ready to make legally binding cleanup decisions, FRESH members were involved. It took 22 years, but the work at Fernald was completed in the fall of 2006. In America's Nuclear Wastelands, Max S. Power uses non-technical language to present a brief overview of nuclear weapons history and contamination issues, as well as a description of the institutional and political environment. He provides a background for understanding the major value conflicts and associated political dynamics, and makes recommendations for navigating long-term stewardship, but his key purpose is to demonstrate the critical role of public participation, and in so doing, encourage citizens to take action regarding local and national policies related to nuclear production and waste disposal.