A look to the future |
261 |
knowledge. The audience may include the regulator, political decision-makers and the public, as well as technical specialists advising external groups and organisations, or the personnel of the implementing organisation itself. Multiple levels of documentation may thus be required, ranging from detailed technical reports designed to record all key assumptions and data in a traceable manner to more accessible forms such as brochures and video presentations. As pointed out, e.g., in NEA (2004), where the audience is primarily the general public, highlighting less-quantitative evidence for safety, including evidence from natural analogues, may be more accessible, more convincing and of more interest than, say, the results of complex mathematical models.
To present the Japanese H12 SA in a way that makes the SA process clear and the implications of the results meaningful both to workers within the SA field and to a wider technical audience, a report complementing the main SA reports (JNC, 2000a–d) was produced that examines the aims, procedure and results of the assessment from a wider perspective (Neall and Smith, 2004). Similar reports have been produced for earlier SAs in Japan and Switzerland (e.g., Neall, 1994). In these reports, the reasonableness of the assessment results is argued, in part, by making comparisons with results from SAs conducted by other national programmes for systems that are in some ways similar. As part of this comparison, Fig. 6.11 shows the calculated annual individual dose as functions of time for the Reference Cases of H12 and eight other HLW and SF assessments conducted internationally. Doses are compared with the range of natural radiation exposure in Japan and to the range of regulatory guidelines (approximately 900– 1200 mSv a 1) in various countries (100–300 mSv a 1). The nuclides that contribute most to dose at different times are also indicated, with the purpose of explaining how releases from a repository will evolve with time and how, consequently, dose and risk will change.
10.4. Implications for environmental protection: disposal of other wastes
It has been stated many times (e.g., Chapman, 1995; Coˆme and Piantone, 2002) that the massive resources which have been invested in developing a safe solution to radwaste means that the approach should also be applied to other wastes, including chemotoxic waste, material with an equivalent or much worse environmental impact than radwaste. For example, in Switzerland, where the plan is for deep geological disposal of radwaste (with the possibility of monitoring the facility for a certain time), the chemotoxic waste depot at Teuftal (Canton Berne) requires supervision for ‘‘as long as Switzerland remains a populated country’’ (Nagra, 1997), clearly indicating the extremely hazardous nature of many chemotoxic wastes. Despite this, there are few signs that chemotoxic waste will be treated appropriately in the near future, certainly not until the regulatory framework for these wastes ‘‘catches up’’ with that for radwaste. Certainly, while there are rumblings of change in the US and the EU, this is being fought tenaciously by the industries which have most to lose from such changes (e.g., pharmaceuticals, agrochemistry, etc.). These industries have very deep pockets, meaning that any retreat from current practices is likely to be a long and bloody battle.
Change may come quicker in other areas, with concerns about the likely impacts of climate change prompting a rapid increase in the amount of R&D carried out into the geological storage of CO2 (e.g., Pearce et al., 2004; Cawley et al., 2005). To date, much
262 |
W.R. Alexander et al. |
of the work has been carried out within existing oil and gas regulatory frameworks, but a move towards other, non-hydrocarbon host formations means that these regulations may not apply (West et al., 2005). Although discussions are still ongoing, it is possible that a lead will be taken from the radwaste industry, with repository-related regulations being implemented in the near future.
10.5. Conclusions
As noted in section 10.1, radwaste is not going to go away of its own accord and, on ethical grounds alone, should be dealt with now. Worldwide, currently only two national disposal programmes are moving ahead successfully – those in Finland and Sweden. It is likely that both countries would argue that this is an indication of the open approach taken by the implementers (Posiva and SKB, respectively), one which has historically invested significant resources in discussions with all stakeholders and, pragmatically, has engaged in dialogue with communities which already host other nuclear-related facilities such as NPPs. That both these countries are home to electricity-dependent high-technology industries and have populations which understand the absolute need for a stable power supply during the long, cold, Scandanavian winters undoubtedly also plays a role, suggesting that they may not be the best role models for the rest of the world6.
It is clear that radwaste disposal can only become widely accepted when there is a more broad-based acceptance by all stakeholders of the need for the approach – and this can only begin to happen when the opponents of disposal take a more mature attitude to waste disposal overall. Chapman (1995) noted that alternatives such as long-term storage ‘‘Appeal to the anti-nuclear lobby since, as long as there is no disposal solution where the operator eventually intends to lock the door and walk away, then there is no demonstrated closure of the nuclear fuel cycle’’. As has been noted before, there is a common misconception that constructing a radwaste repository will lead to more nuclear power, so that by simply blocking repository programmes the world will somehow ‘‘wisen up’’ and abandon the nuclear option, flocking instead to develop re-usable sources of power such as solar and aeolian energy. Unfortunately, this is simply not the case, as is reflected in the view of Prof. Rod Smith (Head of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College, London) who recently noted (The Observer, 15 August, 2004): ‘‘Anyone who thinks we can replace nuclear power stations with renewables is talking bollocks’’. His comments are echoed in the latest scramble to begin building new NPPs in countries such as Finland, the UK, the USA, ROK, South Africa, India, China, and so on, despite arguments that NPPs are uneconomic (e.g., Brooks, 2006).
In other words, the coupling of waste disposal with NPP construction simply means that the waste will ultimately be forgotten. Surely this helps no-one and will simply move the burden of eventual disposal to our descendants? Would it not be better for the disposal opponents to engage in true and honest dialogue with the waste implementers and become really aware of the R&D behind the US$ billions which have been invested in research into radwaste disposal worldwide so far? After all, radioactive waste has to
6 As can also be seen in Finland’s unilateral move to build a new nuclear plant at a time when close neighbours, such as Germany, were moving in the opposite direction and actively closing down reactors.
A look to the future |
263 |
be dealt with and, despite the woolly thinking of many people who would rather take the stance of the much-maligned ostrich (c.f. McCombie, 1997), the problem has to be tackled head on – and now. It must surely be clear that there is really only one practicable solution to the problem, namely deep geological disposal.
10.6. References
Alexander, W.R., Gautschi, A., Zuidema, P. (1998). Thorough testing of performance assessment models: the necessary integration of in situ experiments, natural analogues and laboratory work. Sci. Basis Nucl. Waste Manag. XXI, 1013–1014.
Baverstock, K., Ball, D.J. (2005). The UK Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. J. Radiol. Prot. 25, 313–320.
Brooks, M. (2006). Is it all over for nuclear power? New Scientist, 22 April, 2006, Reed Business Information Ltd, London, UK, 33–37.
Buser, M. (1998). Hu¨te-Konzept versus Endlagerung radioaktiver Abfa¨lle – Argumente, Diskurse und Ausblick – Expertenbericht; Hauptabteilung fu¨r die Sicherheit der Kernanlagen – Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate (HSK), Villigen, Switzerland.
Cawley, S. et al. (2005). NGCAS Project – Assessing the potential for EOR and CO2 storage at the Forties Oilfield, Offshore UK. In: Benson, S.M., Oldenburg, C., Hoverstein, M., Imbus, S. (Eds.), Carbon Dioxide Capture for Storage in Deep Geologic Formations – Results from the CO2 Capture Project, Vol. 2: Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide with Monitoring and Verification, Elsevier Publishing, Oxford, UK, pp 713–750.
Chapman, N.A. (1995). Where next? Chapter 10. In: Savage, D. (Ed.) (1995). The Scientific and Regulatory Basis for the Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste. Wiley, Chichester, UK.
CNE (2006). Commission Nationale d’Evaluation relative aux recherches sur la gestion des de´chets radioactifs: Rapport (2006) global d’e´valuation des recherches conduites dans le cadre de la loi du 30 de´cembre 1991. CNE, Paris, France.
Coˆme, B., Piantone, P. (2002). Development of natural analogues in toxic waste disposal: a look to the future. In: von Maravaic, H., Alexander, W.R. (Eds.), 8th EC NAWG meeting: proceedings of an international workshop held in Strasbourg, France, from 23–25 March, 1999. CEC EUR 19118 EN CEC, Luxambourg, pp 3–6.
Curtis, A., Wood, R. (Eds.) (2004). Geological prior information: informing science and engineering, Geological Society Special Publication 239, The Geological Society, London, UK.
Gray, M.N., Shenton, B.S. (1998). For better concrete, take out some of the cement. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACI/CANMET symposium on the durability of concrete, Bangkok, Thailand, 31 May–5 June, 1998, CANMET Technical Report CANMET, Ottawa, Canada.
Huertas, F., Fuentes-Cantillana, J.L., Jullien, F., et.al. (2000). Full-scale engineered barriers experiment for a deep geological repository for high-level radioactive waste in crystalline host rock (FEBEX project): Final report. EUR 19147 EN, EU, Luxembourg.
IAEA (2004). Developing multinational radioactive waste repositories: infrastructural framework and scenarios of co-operation. IAEA Tecdoc-1413, IAEA, Vienna, Austria.
ICRP (2000). Radiation Protection Recommendations as Applied to the Disposal of Long Lived Solid Radioactive Waste, ICRP Publication 81, Pergamon Press Oxford, UK.
JAEA (2007) FEPC & JAEA. The Second Progress Report (TRU-2) on the R&D for TRU (ILW) waste disposal in Japan. JAEA Report (in press). JAEA, Tokai, Japan.
Jessberger, H.L. (Ed.) (1995). Gefrierscha¨chte Gorleben. Proceedings of a Symposium, Bochum, Germany, 21–22 September, 1994. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
JNC (2000a). Project to establish technical basis for HLW disposal in Japan, Project Overview Report, 2nd progress report on research and development for the geological disposal of HLW in Japan. JNC Report TN1410 2000-001. JNC, Tokai, Japan.
JNC (2000b). H12 Project to establish technical basis for HLW disposal in Japan: supporting report 1: Geological environment in Japan, 2nd progress report on research and development for the geological disposal of HLW in Japan. JNC TN1410 2000-002. JAEA, Tokai, Japan.
264 W.R. Alexander et al.
JNC (2000c). H12 Project to establish technical basis for HLW disposal in Japan: supporting report 2: Repository design and engineering technology, 2nd progress report on research and development for the geological disposal of HLW in Japan. JNC TN1410 2000-003. JAEA, Tokai, Japan.
JNC (2000d). H12 Project to establish technical basis for HLW disposal in Japan: supporting report 3: SA of the geological disposal system, 2nd progress report on research and development for the geological disposal of HLW in Japan. JNC TN1410 2000-004. JAEA, Tokai, Japan.
JNC (2005) H17: Development and management of the technical knowledge base for the geological disposal of HLW, Knowledge Management Report. JNC Report TN1400 2005-022, JAEA, Tokai, Japan.
Kemm, K. (1999). Development of the South African Pebble Bed Modular Reactor System. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Symposium of the Uranium Institute, The Uranium Institute, London, UK.
Kickmaier, W., Vomvoris, S., McKinley, I.G., Alexander, W.R. (2005). Grimsel test site: Challenges for the 21st century and beyond. European Geologist 19 (June 2005), 19–22.
McCombie, C. (1997). In the eye of the beholder: Different perceptions of the problems of waste disposal. In: Which is more stable: a rock formation or a social structure? Bulletin, No. 30. Nagra, Wettingen, Switzerland, pp 15–23.
McKinley, I.G., Alexander, W.R. (1992). A review of the use of natural analogues to test performance assessment models of a cementitious near field. Waste Manag. 12, 253–259.
McKinley, I.G., Kaku, K., Neall, F.N., Kawamura, H., Asano, H. (2004). Assessment of operational-phase safety of deep geological repositories for radioactive waste. In: Spitzer, C., Schmocker, U., Dang, V.N. (Eds.), Probabalistic Safety Assessment and Management 2004, Vols. 6. Springer, London, UK, pp 3540–3545.
Miller, W.M., Alexander, W.R., Chapman, N.A., McKinley, I.G., Smellie, J.A.T. (2000). Geological disposal of radioactive wastes and natural analogues, Waste Management Series, Vol. 2. Pergamon, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mukherjee, P.K. (1982). A preliminary report on the use of cementitious grouts for repository sealing. AECL Report TR-192, AECL, Pinawa, Canada.
Nagra (1997). Bulletin, No. 30. Nagra, Wettingen, Switzerland.
NEA (2004). The nature and purpose of the post-closure safety case in geological disposal, OECD/NEA, Paris, France.
Neall, F.B. (1994). Kristallin-I Results in Perspective. Nagra Technical Report 93-23. Nagra, Wettingen, Switzerland.
Neall, F.B., Smith, P.A. (2004). H12: Examination of safety assessment aims, procedures and results from a wider perspective. JNC Technical Report JNC TY1400 2004-001, JAEA, Tokai, Japan.
NW (2006). Nucleonics Week, March 2, 2006. Platts, Washington DC, USA.
Pearce, J.M., et al. (2004). A review of natural CO2 accumulations in Europe as analogues for geological sequestration. In: Baines, S.J., Worden, R.H. (Eds.), Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide, Special Publication 233, Geological Society, London, UK, pp 29–42.
Philipose, K.E., Feldman, R.F., Beaudoin, J.J. (1991). Durability predictions from rate of diffusion testing of normal Portland Cement, fly ash and slag concrete. AECL Report 10489, AECL, Pinawa, Canada.
Savage, D. (Ed.) (1995). The Scientific and Regulatory Basis for the Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste. Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Spitzer, C., Schmocker, U., Dang, V.N. (Eds.) (2004a–f ). Probabalistic Safety Assessment and Management 2004, Vols. 1–6. Springer, London, UK.
Seidler, W., Faucher, B. (2004). EU’s ESDRED initiative. Nuclear Engineering International, July 2004, pp 19–21.
Umeki, H, McKinley, I.G., Masuda, S., Kawamura, H. (2004). Alternative repository design options for HLW disposal in Japan. In: Spitzer, C., Schmocker, U., Dang, V.N. (Eds.) (2004f ). Probabalistic safety assessment and management 2004, Vols. 6. Springer, London, UK, pp 3552–3557.
West, J., Alexander, W.R., Kaku, K., McKinley, I.G., Shimmura, A. (2002). Communication of nuclear power concepts to stakeholders – the use of nature’s own laboratories. Proceedings for NUCEF 2001 – Scientific Basis for Criticality Safety, Separation Process and Waste Disposal. 31 Oct – 2 Nov 2001, Tokai, Japan. Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute Report JAERI Conf 2002-004. JAERI, Tokai, Japan, pp 47–54.
West, J.M., Pearce, J., Bentham, M., Maul, P. (2005). Issue Profile: Environmental Issues and the Geological Storage of CO2. Eur. Env. 15, 250–259.