Nuclear Waste Management Strategies: An International Perspective

By Mark H. Sanders and Charlotta E. Sanders

Nuclear Waste Management Strategies: An International Perspective presents worldwide insights into nuclear waste management strategies from a technical engineering perspective, with consideration for important legal aspects. It provides a one-stop, comprehensive analysis of both historical and up-to-date nuclear waste management strategies, while consulting important legal aspects of decision-making and implementation processes. With case studies from around the world, this book provides a unique understanding of nuclear waste management technologies and methods available, ensuring that researchers and engineering professionals are equipped with the right knowledge to design, build, implement and improve their own waste management strategies.

This book will benefit those researching and learning in the nuclear energy sector, especially those specializing in nuclear waste management strategies, as well as technical and legal communities within nuclear and environmental areas. It is also a valuable resource for lawmakers and regulatory bodies concerned with nuclear policy and waste management.

• Provides a one-stop location for reference material on nuclear waste management strategies from around the world
• Focuses on the associated technical engineering elements of planning for, and implementing, waste management strategies
• Includes real-life examples from Europe, North America, South America, Asia, the Middle East and Africa

• Language: English
• Publisher: Academic Press
• Release date: Oct 16, 2019
• ISBN: 9780128137390

Mark H. Sanders

Mark C. Sanders holds an advanced diploma in International Nuclear law from the University of Montpellier (France). He is the lead author of the comprehensive journal articles on the nuclear waste management dilemma (Progress in Nuclear Energy 90 (2016) 69-97; 110 (2019) 148-169). During his studies, Mr. Sanders completed courses at the Dickson Poon School of Law at King’s College in London (England), obtaining first-class honors. Mr. Sanders is an active member of the International Nuclear Law Association, where he chairs the Radiological Protection working group. He also enjoys participating as a member of the Nuclear Waste Management and International Trade and New Build working groups. In addition, Mr. Sanders along with his spouse, Dr. Charlotta Sanders, are actively engaged in publishing academic manuscripts on nuclear waste management strategies and laws among the major nuclear power producing nation states. In 2018, Mr. Sanders received the American Chemical Society’s Energy and Fuels Division’s Distinguished Service Medal (Peter Derrick memorial medal). Areas of expertise: Nuclear waste management, Radiation protection, Environmental issues, Nuclear regulation, Regulatory environment, International public law (with a focus on nuclear).

Book preview

India

Chapter 1

Introduction

Abstract

The management of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear wastes demands a strategy to provide for the safe, secure, and permanent disposal of radioactive material from power generation, defense uses, and other activities. Nation states have taken different paths to nuclear waste management and are at various stages of the development of a nuclear waste management strategy. A strategy may include developing a geological repository, nuclear fuel reprocessing, interim storage, as well as discussions of the creation of a multinational storage facility. This book explores the many options to nuclear waste management, as well as the political/societal barriers and legal frameworks from both an international and local perspective.

Keywords

History; Legal system; Nuclear waste management; Political System

Contents

1.1Background

1.2The non-dilemma, dilemma?

1.3Nuclear waste management compartments

1.4The concept of legal stability

1.5The concept of legal legitimacy

References

Nuclear power generation, it is often argued, provides a stable, efficient and secure means of power generation while remaining nearly carbon neutral (Svenne, 2012), and therefore should be part of the overall energy mix in the global effort to combat a warming climate. While the veracity of the statement is not widely in dispute—dependent on one’s political persuasion and environmental philosophy—despite the radiological events at Fukushima, this central idea has given impetus for growth in the popularity of nuclear power in certain corners of the globe, especially among certain Asian nation states, such as China and India (Truelove and Greenberg, 2013). Nuclear power generation has the ability to provide constancy in the energy program of a nation state as demand for raw materials, such as oil and natural gas, continue to grow, which has brought nuclear energy very firmly back onto the political agenda (Tromans, 2009) of many nation states around the globe. For both developed and developing nuclear power generating States, a major dilemma is the closing of the nuclear fuel cycle by successfully managing any created nuclear waste, generally in a long-term geologic disposal facility for high-level waste. As Tromans suggests, the track of nuclear waste management programs in many of these States has commonly not been a happy one (Tromans, 2009).

The overall concept of the book is to take the reader on a journey thru some of the complexities surrounding different aspects of a nuclear waste management program, as well as present the strategies and options being looked into, used, or desired by a plethora of nation states. Nuclear waste management programs are constantly in flux due to technological requirements, political decisions, and economic impacts. Thus, to consider nuclear waste management programs from an international perspective is not the easiest of tasks. It is, therefore, envisioned that this book will undergo revisions, as new information and concepts appear. For now, our main purpose and intent is to provide a starting point for the student or professional starting their initial foray into the nuclear waste management voyage. This book is based on two research papers, published in 2016 and January 2019 (Sanders and Sanders, 2016a, 2019). Therefore, the reader will find areas of overlap with these papers, but also additions and more expansive discussion, which the limitations of amount of written pages is not possible for the template of a research article. Footnotes have been limited, where possible, for ease of typesetting and publication.

1.1 Background

In 1957, during the initial development phase of the modern nuclear power generating industry, it was commented that We need not be awed by nuclear science. The operations of a steam laundry are exceedingly more intricate and the economic operation of a steam laundry is a whole lot more perplexing (42 Mass., 1957). In the 60 or so years since this statement was made, the use of by-products of splitting the atom is now even more widespread given nuclear applications in research, industry, medicine and even agriculture. However, as Ausness noted in 1979, even before the accidents at Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011), Public awareness of the serious problems associated with nuclear power has grown, and consequently, many people are now deeply concerned about the dangers of nuclear power (Ausness, 1979). Such acute public awareness is manifested through both civil and uncivil discourse, including: (1) engagement in open public meetings; (2) use of the judicial system through court action, usually with a basis of objection on environmental and safety concerns; and‚ (3) acts of civil disobedience generally observed at nuclear sites, especially with regard to the transport of nuclear waste, with anti-nuclear protesters blocking shipping routes leading to clashes with police and/or security forces.

Though nuclear power generation is taking on a new significance as a base-load low carbon source of energy in the global fight against climate change, the political decisions associated with nuclear power programs, and more notably with nuclear waste management programs, can be fraught with political and social peril for the policy-maker. Therefore, the political decision to include a nuclear power generating and nuclear waste management program in the energy mix has to be undertaken and presented in a manner consistent with a nation’s legal customs and traditions, as well as a connection to its past to assure that these programs are firmly rooted in the legal traditions and culture of that particular nation state (FORATOM, 2012).

As further discussed in Chapter 4, it is the prerogative of the State to determine its nuclear waste management program in accordance with the decision-making processes within the State. It is in this right, so enshrined within the Joint Convention (IAEA, 1997), that gives variance to the nuclear waste management strategies among the Contracting Parties. Thus, given the political predilection of a State, it must be assumed that some State’s decision making processes will not be as democratic as others, so that decisions to site a repository will probably be in the hands of elite with vested interests (Marshall, 2005). Though this is certainly a matter of taste, it cannot be assumed that such decisions will not have equal weight of law or be less/more correct choices given the similar obligations inherent to the Contracting Parties to the Joint Convention.

In fact, the Swedish historian and author Geijer in the early 1800s would argue that as human history is a chain of connections of people and ideas through the ages of time, it is the decision making processes promulgated in harmony with the legal traditions and culture of the State that ensures a sense of stability between the bonds that link these connections, as sudden large chasms should not appear between each link of this chain. Based on this model, each new action, decision, or discovery should therefore occur at a slow and steady pace in its progression. To achieve this sought after stability, an incremental or step-by-step approach is therefore required.

The origins leading to the discovery of atomic fission (pre-World War II) have a linkage to past discoveries in the preceding centuries. A particular problem in stability through linkage arose chiefly due to how the current use of atomic fission for peaceful purposes in energy production (post-World War II) came to fruition because of and through the discoveries occurring while in the darkness of secrecy for developing the atom bomb under the auspices of the Manhattan project. The sudden thrust of atomic fission on the conscious of humanity in August 1945 with the dropping of the atom bomb did not allow this new force to achieve a stability through linkage in mankind’s history chain. Instead, there appears to be a metaphorical gap in this period of history. It lies in stark contrast to Geijer’s stability through linkage proposition. Therefore, there exists a need to provide stability in the sustainability model for nuclear power generation, and more importantly, with issues surrounding nuclear waste management.

Though it would appear at first glance a high hurdle to overcome, the need for a nuclear waste management strategy (though a relatively new phenomenon in relation to human history up to this present time) in actuality springs from the natural progression of historical events that arose through the scientific discoveries during the preceding centuries. In addition, though nuclear law is a relatively new area of law, it too stems from centuries of law making precedent and theory. Therefore, it is possible to jump the hurdles that seem to beset nuclear waste management programs and the dilemma faced.

1.2 The non-dilemma, dilemma?

In discussing the nuclear waste dilemma one must be careful to understand the root cause of the concerns that are hindering the progression of choosing a path to resolving the nuclear waste management question. Is there in actuality a nuclear waste management dilemma? The answer to the question is based on which perspective logical reasoning is being applied. On one side of the coin, there are challenges to the technical requirements of a long-term geologic storage facility. On the flip side, is the social/political decision-making processes which determine the ability for proceeding with solving these technical challenges. An argument can be made that nuclear waste management concerns are primarily a social/political dilemma and not so much of a technical/scientific argument.

According to the poet, Robert Frost, the simplest reference to a dilemma refers to the concept of being presented with two choices, in which the person must only precede with one of the options presented (Frost, 1916). In other words, should a person be presented with the option of both cake and ice cream for dessert, the decider can only choose one of the two options and must forego the other. Similarly, many nuclear waste management programs are centered around two choices: to bury or not to bury high-level nuclear waste? The delay in choosing to act on this issue stems from the moral question—is it ethical to leave this high-level waste for future generations to manage? Of course, these types of social dilemmas pervade all aspects of human life, not just nuclear waste management. Any situation requiring a value judgment causing some level of social coordination brings with it a social dilemma of some kind. Weber et al., defines these Social dilemmas by two characteristics: (a) the ability of each decision maker to receive higher payoffs for their selfish choices than cooperative choices and/or (b) all decision makers, through selfish actions, provide for lower return than had the conclave of decision-makers acted in a cooperative manner (Weber et al., 2004). These characteristics, it could be supposed, are self-evident in the wide convergence of outcomes applied to the current status of the American and Swedish nuclear waste management programs for high-level waste.

As is further discussed in Chapter 6, it is observed that one of the most common global features found in nuclear waste management programs, especially in making determination of what to do with high-level waste, is a wait and see policy. This results in policy-makers putting off important needed decisions onto other generations, or in the hope for better times, wishing that the problem will somehow resolve itself. Merlhiot et al. postulates that such reasoning (or lack thereof ) is the outcome of a dual-process theory resulting from the emotional influences during decision-making processes. According to this dual-process decision making theory, the decision maker engages on two parallel tracks of thought—a moral response or a utilitarian response. In this dual track model, the moral response (choosing to do nothing) derives from an automatic emotional response system (i.e., a fast, intuitive, automatic track). Conversely, a utilitarian response, which then requires the decision-maker to embark on a course of action (i.e., a slow, controlled, and emotionally independent process), will constitute a cognitive cost to the individual which he/she might find to be uncomfortable, and therefore inhibiting (Merlhiot et al., 2018).

The Swedish National Council for Nuclear Waste (previously known as KASAM) wrote in 1998:

We have a responsibility to search for the optimum solution on the basis of the knowledge that we have today. Since our knowledge of the long-term evolution of the repository is imperfect, our assessment of the consequences of our solution will be uncertain. For this reason, we must choose a solution that is sufficiently open to allow future generations freedom of choice. However, there are inevitably crucial cutoff points in time, in terms of both preserving freedom of choice and taking responsibility for the consequences of our actions. Our opportunity for assuming moral responsibility declines with time on a sliding scale.

SOU (2013:11)

Added to this, Professor Tom Burke forewarns that the cost of too long of a delay for a decision-maker is that he risk[s] being gored by both of its horns if [he] takes too long to decide what to do. Then, [he has] the worst of both worlds (Burke, 2007). Finally, these dual-process decision-making tracks do not have to necessarily lead to unworkable or unmanageable outcomes, as the Finnish historian Henrick Meinander explains:

This [has always] been the case with [these types of] historical processes – they happen concurrently and oft time overlap each other, they develop in divergent directions, while not internally contradicting each other, and in the final end result can lead to surprising results.

Meinander (2006)

1.3 Nuclear waste management compartments

In order to appreciate the different challenges and paths chosen by nation states regarding a nuclear waste management strategy, it is important to gain not only an understanding of the technologies available/chosen, but to gain an insight into the cultural, historical and legislative processes of a nation state as well. These non-technical workings help to determine the scientific technology employed, as well as the legal and siting process for a permanent disposal site in a nation’s waste management strategy.

Thus, nuclear waste management decision-making processes can be said to be compartmentalized into four parts. Shown in Fig. 1.1, these parts comprise: (1) concerns surrounding the economic viability toward the funding and building of a nuclear waste disposal facility; (2) that any environmental concerns are duly considered to ensure any negative effects on all stakeholders (e.g., human, vegetable, mineral, animal) have been thoroughly investigated and taken into consideration; (3) the assurance that the science and technology employed are up to date and sound, being free from political influences; (4) that the waste management facility siting, design, construction and operation reflects the desires and will of the society; and, (5) that all actions provide for stability throughout any legal action and/or policy making decisions undertaken by the nation state to guarantee that such actions are performed in accordance with the rule of law found within that society (Sanders and Sanders, 2016c).

Fig. 1.1 The four compartments of a sustainable radioactive waste management program.

The values represented within these four compartments are required and important tools in developing a stable and legitimate framework for creating the necessary laws, statutes, regulations, and rules in a nuclear waste management program. As each compartment harmoniously interacts with the other, the process of effectively meeting all the aspects of a nuclear waste management program from inception, to a time point far into the future is achieved. Nuclear waste management programs must be both stable and legitimate to endure throughout the extended time frames envisioned. Therefore, consideration is given here to the two main concepts of Stability—legal stability and legal legitimacy.

1.4 The concept of legal stability

The primary objective for designing and operating a nuclear reactor is the utilization of the energy or radiation released by controlled chain reaction… [h]owever the achievement of a stable chain of fission reactions is only a part of the responsibility of the nuclear engineer. In addition, he must learn how to extract and use the energy liberated in these fission reactions (Duderstadt and Hamilton, 1976). Equally, only part of the responsibility of the policymaker’s primary objective is to provide the written laws, statutes, regulations, and rules, but more so, he must be able to seize the ability to utilize the energy or legal force created toward a series of relevant actions, in a controlled and sustained environment, for achieving the desired end outcome. The issue of stability and change in constitutional law (Williams, 1963) is continually hotly debated by academics, having fervent partisans on each side of the equation.

Stability is a word that is commonly used to present something that is stationary or unchangeable (Cambridge Dictionary, 2018), or when discussing legal stability we usually refer to the basic building block structuring the personality of the common law—stare decisis (Black’s Law Dictionary, 2004). Thus, the judicial or political system has made some determination of a particular path of progression so that those engaged in an activity may know with certainty that the decision/determination is not an arbitrary one, and may therefore be relied upon through a future time period. However, a purpose of government, and a duty of the courts, is to process change as society and technology alters, all while seeking to contain this constant and restless motion [of government] (McKay, 1963) as it seeks a new stable footing. The force called stability creates an exceptional central challenge for nuclear waste management programs, as laws, statutes, regulations, and rules written today, as promulgated, are for an intended extended outward period, projecting forward today’s burden for tomorrow’s generations to manage. Such laws, statutes, regulations, and rules are not promulgated in a vacuum of peace and tranquility, but within complex political systems, which at times display outward chaotic change, even though law should portray a sense of stability (Pound, 1923). In the 1930s, Goodwin declared:

We are wont to look upon our government as something permanent, indestructible, and, in its fundamentals, unchangeable. Anyone who accepts this thought unqualifiedly disregards world history. Governments and civilizations arise, prosper, and disintegrate.

Bar Briefs 8 (1931–1932)

Human history is fraught with political systems where seemingly stable states become unstable and falter. The concern arises of what happens to a nuclear waste management program in a nation state should that state cease to exist, because that particular political or legal system is unable to process change, in its pursuit of a constant arrangement of stability. It is time consuming and difficult to delve into the causes leading to instability within any nation state, and this would necessitate contemplation of multiple and varied factors. Suffice is to say, Posner explains that political instability is an inherent trait in all systems of government, acknowledging that though [a]uthoritarian regimes may suppress the symptoms of political instability… [it would be incorrect to assume that] only reliably stable regimes are those in which the symptoms of political unrest are absent despite their not being forcibly suppressed (Posner, 1997).

Thus, as its most basic function, government is designated with the obligation to insure a stable political and legal framework through mechanisms designed [with the preservation of] certainty (McKay, 1963). Conflictingly, given the reality that the human race and their judicial and political systems function in a world surrounded by alteration, these societies must continue in a forward progression where living law [flourishes and is not] imprisoned by the past (Thacher, 1939).

It is the continual conflict between the dynamics of stability and change which determines if a political or legal system will collapse in on itself, or if it will survive. Walker et al., provides a line of inquiry regarding a bridging force for the ability of a stable system to successfully process change:

It is assumed that patterns of behavior will be more stable and enduring if they can be characterized as legitimate; that actors who have legitimacy attributed to them will be more able to induce compliance than those who do not share that attribute…

Walker et al. (1986)

1.5 The concept of legal legitimacy

The search for legitimacy in any political system may be considered the oldest problem of political theory (Francis, 2017). Given that a nuclear waste management program is expected to last for hundreds of years from inception to end of life, this search for legitimacy when creating the nuclear power and waste management program is of great importance, as a citizen living under any political system must have confidence in [the] administrative processes [found within that system], and [in the final outcome, be able to] respect and accept [those] decisions (Le Sueur, 2011).

Each political system, whether democratic or authoritarian in nature, shares certain legal traditions, which provide it with legitimacy. These traditions not only entail a similarity of various institutions (e.g., parliament/legislature, courts, and administrative agencies) and processes, they encompass common core values, such as lawfulness, expertise, efficiency, and effectiveness (Sanders and Sanders, 2016b).

Because legitimacy is such an essential quality of the law, it is a subject that has, and continues to, preoccupy legal scholars (Wisotsky, 1978). Barnett argues law proceeds from two binding sources: (1) laws created through the people’s voice, though not all may agree, and (2) laws created where the State embarks on a course of action believing it is the best arbiter of what is appropriate without the full input of such non-consenting persons (Barnett, 2003). Barnett’s model rests upon the precept that any government is established, and endowed, with powers of competencies to do what is required in fashioning the legal structure for executing the desired undertaking, and is sufficiently broad in its scope to encompass the similarities shared for rule making by both democratic and authoritarian regimes. This is that the primary reason for any government, as a function of its political system, is to fashion a framework for what is deemed by that system as necessary and proper for initiating, building, financing and operating a civilian nuclear power and/or nuclear waste management