Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-t27h7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-20T14:31:45.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Approaches to Comparative Risk Assessments of National and International Radioactive Waste Disposal Options

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2011

J A Heathcote ,
A H Rintoul  and
P J Waite
J A Heathcote
Affiliation:
Technical Director, Entec UK Ltd., 160-162 Abbey Foregate, Shrewsbury SY2 6BZ, UK
A H Rintoul
Affiliation:
Technical Director, RobSearch Engineering Pty Limited, Level 11, 80 Arthur St, North Sydney 2060, Australia
P J Waite
Affiliation:
Technical Director, Entec UK Ltd., 17 Angel Gate, City Road, London EC1V 2PT, UK
Get access

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.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 663: Symposium – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste management XXIV , 2000 , 809
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Savage, D, The scientific and regulatory basis for the geological disposal of radioactive waste, Wiley, 1995.Google Scholar
2. Nuclear Energy Agency, The Environmental and Ethical Basis of Geological Disposal, Paris, 1995.Google Scholar
3. House of Lords, Management of nuclear waste, 3rd report, London, 1999.Google Scholar
4. House of Lords, Management of nuclear waste, Evidence Volume 2, p318 (Friends of the Earth), London, 1999.Google Scholar
5. McCombie, C, Pangea Resources International AG, A Proposed Global Solution for the Disposal of Unwanted Nuclear Materials, ICEM Conference on radioactive waste management and environmental remediation, Nagoya, 27 September 1999.Google Scholar
6. Miller, I, Black, J, McCombie, C, Pentz, D, Zuidema, P, High isolation sites for radioactive waste disposal, WM99, Tucson, 28 February-4 March, 1999.Google Scholar
7. British Nuclear Energy Society, UK Nuclear waste: finding a way forward, London,12 April 2000.Google Scholar
8.Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998.Google Scholar
9. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Radioactive waste - where next?, London, 1997 Google Scholar
10.UK Nirex Ltd, The way forward - a discussion document, 1988.Google Scholar
11.Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Regulations 1999, Statutory Rules 1999, N°37.Google Scholar
12.Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998, Guide to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Licensing Framework, Edition 1, March 1999.Google Scholar
13.ICRP Publication 60, 1990.Google Scholar
14.IAEA, Safety Series III-F, 1996.Google Scholar
15.UK Nirex Ltd, Report S/97/012, 1997.Google Scholar
16.SKB, Report TR-99-06, Stockholm, 1999.Google Scholar
17.US EPA, Environmental Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada, 40 CFR 197, 1999.Google Scholar