Nuclear waste disposal
Author – Akash Ramesh Sangare
1.Analysis of the Financial Assurance Plan in the License Application for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility
HAYDEN, F. G.; FULLWILER, S. T.(2001), state that AEC’s license application does not meet the efficiency criteria with particular corrective actions or the adequacy of funds. The funds would be more inadequate if the years of operation are less than the maximum of thirty years because there would be fewer years to collect levies. Furthermore, it is not possible to compensate for the inadequate revenue by increasing the fee charged per cubic foot because the disposal facility is a monopoly, thus the demand is elastic (a positive marginal revenue) and a price increase would decrease revenue. As Mare R. Tool explained: “Examination permits reflection on the character of the consequences and upon their bearing on future events” (1979, 288). This examination demonstrated that the consequences that could be expected from AECs financial assurance plan cannot be consistent with established social criteria. Thus, the plan is not efficient.
2. Collaboration by Deflection: Coping with Spent Nuclear Fuel
KARLESKY, J. J. (2012), state that the final disposition of a central repository is uncertain. In the meantime, spent fuel will continue to accumulate on nuclear power plant sites throughout the nation, with progressively higher amounts placed on site in dry cask storage. Political demands to take the spent fuel away will not relent, given past national government promises, continuing costs, environmental fears, and disquiet about terrorism. But the waste as yet has nowhere to go. States with nuclear power plants increasingly will need to consider the addition or expansion of on-site dry cask facilities. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that dry cask storage is environmentally safe for a period of 100 years (Waste Confidence 2008, 59567), and nuclear policy analysts point out that dry storage facilitates later permanent disposal by allowing the dissipation of heat and radioactivity (Macfarlane and Ewing 2006, 407). Whether a political process marked by collaboration among contending parties and the values of representativeness and accountability actually can produce an operating central repository remains an open question. But in another nuclear policy ironic twist, the same waste that has so inhibited collaboration in central siting has demonstrably facilitated it in some states wrestling with the politically thorny problem of coping with spent nuclear fuel.
3. Attitudes Toward the Transportation of Nuclear Waste: The Development of a Likert-Type Scale
LARSEN, K. S. (1994), state that the results of the five phases of work on the ATNW Scale have yielded a scale of high internal homogeneity and promising reliability. When compared with other established environmental, political and social issue scales, the ATNW Scale demonstrated a pattern of significant construct validity. Those who favored the transportation of nuclear waste displayed highly similar attitudes on related measures, such as the willingness to have a nuclear facility in the community, attitudes toward a specific nuclear facility, and the use of nuclear energy in general. Those who favored the transportation project were more politically anomic and economically conservative. This conservative perspective also yielded predictable correlations on other environmental issues, including attitudes toward the preservation of old growth forest and attitudes toward the timber industry. Those inclined to favor old growth preservation and to oppose the timber industry also tended to oppose nuclear waste transportation. Other social issues followed a similar pattern; those favoring the value of education and opposing capital punishment were more negative toward the transportation project. These results al lend support to a meaningful pattern of construct validity for the ATNW.
4.Political and Economic Analysis of Low-Level Radioactive Waste
HAYDEN, F. G.; BOLDUC, S. R, (1997), state that the system explained above is the result of unfounded promises, an expensive cost-plus contract, high-interest loan agreements, and a flawed political process. In 1987, the Contract stated that the cost would be about $43 million. To date, about $80 million has been paid to contractors, subcontractors, and sub-subcontractors. The total owed to date for borrowed funds and accrued interest is about $152 million, and no construction has taken place. An estimated date for beginning operation is January 1, 2001. By then, the total value on the loans will have increased to about $350 million. Those loans plus construction costs, plus construction financing, plus adders, plus miscellaneous cost could reach an estimated $500 million by 2001. That is an estimate of the cost be- fore inclusion of operating costs; inclusion of funding for safety, closure, and post- operation maintenance funds; and of new cost-plus adders. This is the cost package on a facility projected to receive about 5,000 cubic feet of LLRW per year. As per figure in research paper the system will not work. The CIC record is one of civil and political turmoil, a continuous parade of law- suits, expensive cost-plus adders, reformulations of contracts, cost overruns, an executive director imprisoned, instances of raw intimidation, excessive interest costs on loans, a heavy burden placed on various groups, and nothing built. That is the record of a flawed political process that has ignored institutional realities. This project’s record confirms Melman’s warnings. We need to return the issue of how to dispose of LLRW to the federal government for a new-and better-solution.
5.Interstate Compacts and the Management of Low Level Radioactive Wastes
KEARNEY, R. C.; STUCKER, J. J. (1985), state that ultimately, success in developing an adequate regime for the management and disposal of LLW rests on finding the “proper” political solution. Diesing has framed this issue quite precisely and is worth quoting at some length. In the nuclear enterprise, the primary political issue is the back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle: how do we manage and dispose of the effluent from this technology? It is clear that the nuclear industry and its supporters in government did not pay much attention to the institutional problems of radioactive waste management until quite recently.” They continued to believe in the inevitability of a technological fix while ignoring basic political questions, such as how to decide where the wastes would be buried and how to convince prospective host states and local governments to cooperate. In short, the “political problem” was not addressed.
6.Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility
JENKINS, S. H. C. et al. (2011), state that standard LULU models tend to presume that individuals are rather narrowly self-interested and resistant to facilities that are perceived as risky, regardless of the overall community or societal benefit that these facilities can offer. Early research on LULU (and NIMBY) attitudes focused on proximity as the leading cause of resistance to hazardous facilities.(2,28) Later research showed that perceptions of localized benefits can outweigh perceived risks.(4,29) Apart from benefits, research has also indicated that familiarity with the people and technology involved with the facility can also reduce perceived risk and in- crease acceptance.(33,34,37) These later insights enrich the standard LULU model, suggesting that proximity will conditionally affect opposition to potentially hazardous facilities.
7.study Finds Radioactive Waste Contaminates Recycling Process
To conclude that The Nuclear Information And Resource Service (NIRS) has found radioactive materials being released to regular landfills could possibly infiltrate commercial recycling streams. In its report. Out of Control-On Purpose: IX) Doe’s Dispersal of Radioactive Waste into Land- fills and Consumer Products, NIRS tracks how and if the DOE releases radioactive wastes from nuclear bomb production. DOE and other nuclear waste generators release materials, sell them at auction or through exchanges, or send the waste to processors that can release it from radioactive controls to landfills or recyclers, or for reuse. After researching seven sites, NIRS found that waste is processed by state licensed companies, then released to regular landfills, which allows the materials to potentially enter the recycling stream that produces household items and products used to build roads, schools and playgrounds. Although the report commends DOE for its ban on recycling of radioactive metal from nuclear weapons, it also warns there might be loopholes which could threaten environments.
8.Nuclear Waste Management under Approaching Disaster: A Comparison of Decommissioning Strategies for the German Repository Asse II
ILG, P.; GABBERT, S.; WEIKARD, H. (2017), state that this article considers different decommissioning options for the nuclear waste stored in the Asse II salt mine in Germany. To the best of their knowledge, our study is the first that provides a socioeconomic assessment of decommissioning strategies for nuclear waste repositories. Because the geological stability of the Asse II is threatened, They compare the options of (i) complete backfilling of the caverns, (ii) internal relocation, (iii) retrieval of the radioactive waste, and (iv) a do-nothing scenario. Their study in forms the policy process for the selection of one of the options. It also shows that, in the case of Asse II, the deep geological disposal with an insufficient or non existing safety concept adopted in the 1960s has imposed a huge cost burden on future generations. Their study offers a comprehensive cost assessment. Costs consist of expected investment costs for either decommissioning strategy, and of expected social damage costs occurring in case of a flooding of the mine. Expected investment costs comprise costs for technical implementation of a decommissioning strategy, and health damage costs of workers. Expected social damage costs consist of agricultural losses, loss of residential property values, and environmental and health damages caused by flooding and subsequent groundwater contamination. They identify the least-cost option under four different discounting scenarios
9. Commentary on Cost–Benefit Analysis Article for Nuclear Waste Management
NORTH, D. W. (2017), state that in many aspects this cost–benefit analysis is a commendable pioneering effort, and He enthusiastically recommended publication, but with the addition of a commentary to address some larger points. The main ones are as follows. (a) Many risk analyses present numbers and recommendations that are conditioned on assumptions about hazards and how they will unfold. It is important that recipients and readers of risk analyses understand the assumptions on which results are conditioned and be able to step outside the framework of what is taken for granted in the analysis to ask how realistic these starting assumptions or scenarios are. (b) In comparing the costs and benefits of proposed courses of action, it is useful to recall that the status quo, too, has costs and benefits and that these may compare favorably to those from any of the proposed actions when uncertainties about assumptions and scenarios are considered.
10. What Do Lay People Want to Know About the Disposal of Nuclear Waste? A Mental Model Approach to the Design and Development of an Online Risk Communication
SKARLATIDOU, A.; CHENG, T.; HAKLAY, M (2012), to conclude that the risk communication approach adopted here does not ignore all the other factors previously mentioned that potentially influence public attitudes toward nuclear waste. Neither can it be ignored that there are other elements, such as motivated reasoning and cultural cognition, that may further influence public beliefs in such controversial issues such as nuclear waste disposal. Yet the intention of this article is to fill the gap in linking risk communication and information system design. There is also a further belief that it is only ethically correct and a social obligation, to help people appreciate and understand the real risks associated with the disposal of nuclear waste. This is a possible way to reestablish trust because transparency means not only involving the public in a decision-making process (but never the less trying to hide information that might “raise” awareness), but also discussing openly all the elements that could help people to make informed decisions
Conclusion
Nuclear waste disposal involves safely storing radioactive waste generated from nuclear power plants, medical facilities, and other sources to minimize environmental and health risks. Methods include deep geological repositories, where waste is buried deep underground, and interim storage facilities, which temporarily hold waste until a permanent solution is developed. Key challenges include long-term containment, public acceptance, and regulatory compliance. Nuclear waste disposal involves a comprehensive approach encompassing waste classification, disposal methods, site selection, regulatory compliance, public engagement, and ongoing research and development efforts to ensure safe and effective long-term management of radioactive waste. Nuclear waste disposal involves a comprehensive approach encompassing waste classification, disposal methods, site selection, regulatory compliance, public engagement, and ongoing research and development efforts to ensure safe and effective long-term management of radioactive waste
References
HAYDEN, F. G.; BOLDUC, S. R. Political and Economic Analysis of Low-Level Radioactive Waste. Journal of Economic Issues (Association for Evolutionary Economics), [s. l.], v. 31, n. 2, p. 605–613, 1997. DOI 10.1080/00213624.1997.11505952. Disponível em: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=87f04901-7cff-3882-bc15-156e8144c058. Acesso em: 26 fev. 2024.
HAYDEN, F. G.; FULLWILER, S. T. Analysis of the Financial Assurance Plan in the License Application for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility. Journal of Economic Issues (Association for Evolutionary Economics), [s. l.], v. 35, n. 2, p. 373, 2001. DOI 10.1080/00213624.2001.11506371. Disponível em: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=8fe76f4c-35dd-3a5d-b988-c13e835aef2b. Acesso em: 26 fev. 2024.
ILG, P.; GABBERT, S.; WEIKARD, H. Nuclear Waste Management under Approaching Disaster: A Comparison of Decommissioning Strategies for the German Repository Asse II. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, [s. l.], v. 37, n. 7, p. 1213–1232, 2017. DOI 10.1111/risa.12648. Disponível em: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=52dfa6d1-d0a9-3885-8eac-8b50b6a0580f. Acesso em: 26 fev. 2024.
JENKINS, S. H. C. et al. Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, [s. l.], v. 31, n. 4, p. 629–644, 2011. DOI 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01543.x. Disponível em: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=8b8e80b0-3983-32a8-a07a-ee6e0dd24da9. Acesso em: 26 fev. 2024.
KARLESKY, J. J. Collaboration by Deflection: Coping with Spent Nuclear Fuel. Public Administration Review, [s. l.], v. 72, n. 2, p. 196–205, 2012. DOI 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02493.x. Disponível em: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=3b3040c1-6ced-3324-b50b-86cacf6d231c. Acesso em: 26 fev. 2024.
KEARNEY, R. C.; STUCKER, J. J. Interstate Compacts and the Management of Low Level Radioactive Wastes. Public Administration Review, [s. l.], v. 45, n. 1, 1985. DOI 10.2307/3110150. Disponível em: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=0978ea2e-51c3-39ed-b060-8985ed877c8e. Acesso em: 26 fev. 2024.
LARSEN, K. S. Attitudes Toward the Transportation of Nuclear Waste: The Development of a Likert-Type Scale. Journal of Social Psychology, [s. l.], v. 134, n. 1, p. 27–34, 1994. DOI 10.1080/00224545.1994.9710879. Disponível em: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=a3a1f775-0245-32a8-8360-ff6b3e202c08. Acesso em: 26 fev. 2024.
NORTH, D. W. Commentary on Cost-Benefit Analysis Article for Nuclear Waste Management. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, [s. l.], v. 37, n. 7, p. 1233–1234, 2017. DOI 10.1111/risa.12835. Disponível em: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=eba48e51-c551-3b65-98ef-524e078cee33. Acesso em: 26 fev. 2024.
Study Finds Radioactive Waste Contaminates Recycling Process. Professional Safety, [s. l.], v. 52, n. 7, p. 6, 2007. Disponível em: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=64db5362-57f9-3f6d-864d-8592c46d79a3. Acesso em: 26 fev. 2024.
SKARLATIDOU, A.; CHENG, T.; HAKLAY, M. What Do Lay People Want to Know About the Disposal of Nuclear Waste? A Mental Model Approach to the Design and Development of an Online Risk Communication. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, [s. l.], v. 32, n. 9, p. 1496–1511, 2012. DOI 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01773.x. Disponível em: https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=f4e8527a-9ce6-3e6a-9080-93d