Approaches to Comparative Risk Assessments of National and International Radioactive Waste Disposal Options
- PDF / 106,238 Bytes
- 9 Pages / 612 x 792 pts (letter) Page_size
- 112 Downloads / 211 Views
Approaches to Comparative Risk Assessments of National and International Radioactive Waste Disposal Options J A Heathcote1, A H Rintoul2 and P J Waite3 1 Technical Director, Entec UK Ltd., 160-162 Abbey Foregate, Shrewsbury SY2 6BZ, UK. 2 Technical Director, RobSearch Engineering Pty Limited, Level 11, 80 Arthur St, North Sydney 2060, Australia 3 Technical Director, Entec UK Ltd., 17 Angel Gate, City Road, London EC1V 2PT, UK. ABSTRACT Pangea Resources International AG, Switzerland, has put forward the concept of an international geological repository in an Australian desert area, for final disposal of certain of the world’s high-level radioactive wastes and surplus fissile materials. Already publicly contentious in Australia, the concept raises unusual issues in safety and environmental assessment. It is timely, therefore, to consider why and how an initial case for such a repository might be made, in comparison with national options for high-level waste disposal that it might displace. There are several stages ahead of development of a formal safety case for an international repository. The first, and almost certainly the most challenging, is winning of public and political acceptance in the host country that such a repository is the ‘best’ solution to a global problem. We consider the basic need to identify and encompass the concerns of widely disparate stakeholders — industry, governments, national and international regulators, environmental interest groups and the public at large — so that public and political debates can be informed effectively. Many key issues will require comparison both of risks arising from very different operations, and of dissimilar prospective safety performances of complete disposal systems over periods spanning thousands of generations. Nevertheless, we conclude that the validity of such a comparative assessment could be assured by consistent application of a judicious blend of assessment techniques across the alternatives. We also conclude that its usefulness as a vehicle for public discussion would be enhanced by careful attention to public concerns, and by transparently independent review by scientific, technical, sociological and ethical specialists. INTRODUCTION Some 35 countries use fissile radioactive materials in civil programs that produce long-lived radioactive wastes, especially high-level wastes from re-processing of spent uranium fuel, and spent fuel itself. Additionally, staged reductions in nuclear arsenals have already resulted in plutonium stocks far exceeding foreseeable requirements, and there is more to follow. Therefore, irrespective of the future of nuclear power generation, there is already a global need to manage long-lived radioactive waste and surplus fissile material. A number of countries have embarked on development of repositories for indefinite storage or disposal of such materials [1]. There is a view that high-level wastes should be amenable to retrieval for some time into the future, in case today’s ‘waste’ assumes significant value as a ‘resource’ at
Data Loading...
