Safety in long term radioactive waste management: Insight and oversight

Abstract High-level, long-lived radioactive waste remains hazardous for periods that go well beyond our human conception of time (many thousands of years). Because active safety measures are considered unreliable, unjustifiable and simply impossible over such long time spans, experts worldwide recommend geological disposal as the preferred strategy for long-term radioactive waste management, to a large extent due to its promise of delivering ‘passive safety’. Passive safety refers to the repository being safe ‘by itself’, i.e. unmediated by human actors and actions. Safety is thus approached technically and delineated as an intrinsic property of the disposal system. As such, the notion of ‘passive safety’ entails a system simplification that allows for approaching safety in a more calculable and predictable manner than would be the case for ‘active safety’. In this article, we describe and analyze the ambiguity of this seemingly straightforward approach to safety. Drawing on constructivist insights from safety science and science and technology studies, we propose a more integrated sociotechnical vision that transcends the active versus passive safety division. The notion of ‘oversight’, as it is currently starting to surface in international radioactive waste management discourses, will be used as a sensitizing concept, offering potential to elaborate such an integrated vision.

[1]  Snorre Sklet,et al.  Safety barriers: Definition, classification, and performance , 2006 .

[2]  Nicolas Rossignol,et al.  Practices of Incident Reporting in a Nuclear Research Center: A Question of Solidarity , 2015 .

[3]  J. Haverkamp Rock Solid? A scientific review of geological disposal of high-level radioactive waste , 2010 .

[4]  D. Butler France 'imagines the unimaginable' , 2012, Nature.

[5]  Erik Laes,et al.  “On the Uses and Disadvantages of History” for Radioactive Waste Management , 2010 .

[6]  M. Oudheusden,et al.  Shifting and Deepening Engagements: Experimental Normativity in Public Participation in Science and Technology , 2013 .

[7]  T Schneider,et al.  ICRP Publication 122: Radiological Protection in Geological Disposal of Long-lived Solid Radioactive Waste , 2013, Annals of the ICRP.

[8]  Anique Hommels,et al.  Studying Vulnerability in Technological Cultures , 2014 .

[9]  Constance Perin,et al.  Operating as Experimenting: Synthesizing Engineering and Scientific Values in Nuclear Power Production , 1998 .

[10]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Is safety a subject for science , 2014 .

[11]  C. Turcanu,et al.  “How are you vulnerable?”: Using participation for vulnerability analysis in emergency planning , 2017 .

[12]  A M Weinberg,et al.  Social institutions and nuclear energy. , 1972, Science.

[13]  B. Latour Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies , 1999 .

[14]  A. Duit,et al.  Governance and Complexity—Emerging Issues for Governance Theory , 2008 .

[15]  S. Krupar Transnatural ethics: revisiting the nuclear cleanup of Rocky Flats, CO, through the queer ecology of Nuclia Waste , 2012 .

[16]  C. W. Forsberg,et al.  Advanced Reactors, Passive Safety, and Acceptance of Nuclear Energy , 1990 .

[17]  Jantine Schröder,et al.  Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste: A Long-Term Socio-Technical Experiment , 2016, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[18]  G. F. Bennett,et al.  The principles of radioactive waste management , 1997 .