Lessons from national approaches. A long uphill struggle in search of sites for nuclear waste repositories

Dealing with a complex sociotechnical system such as radioactive waste disposal needs an integrated perspective. Much of the widespread blockage faced hitherto may be ascribed to the neglect of relevant dimensions involved. Normatively, the principle of sustainability (incorporating passive protection and control) suggests itself as a reference system. It facilitates a stepwise analysis of dimensions: not only the conventional triad of ecological, economical, and social but also temporal, spatial, technical, political, and ethical. It forces upon stakeholders, including decision makers, an examination of these dimensions and is apt to incorporate most parties’ perspectives, needs, goals, and knowledge systems. After all, we need safe as well as acceptable and accepted sites with facilities designed, built, operated and sustainably closed in due time.

Long-term management of highly toxic waste epitomises three central distributional issues: - local cost and risk vs. general benefit (intragenerational equity issue), - lay persons’ vs. experts’ perspectives (evidentiary equity), - today’s vs. future generations (intergenerational equity). The long-term (ecological) waste dimension is of outstanding ethical relevance: The ones who make the profit (e.g., energy incurring waste) most likely do not bear – possible – risks from the waste. Still, the current generations (we!) have to decide (postponement is also a decision), and: Apart of winners (this waste producing society) there will be losers (locals and future generations). A formidable risk-benefit asymmetry.

Against this background, it is not surprising that North’s statement of over two decades ago is still valid: High-level nuclear waste management “has the deserved reputation as one of the most intractable policy issues facing the United States and other nations using nuclear reactors for electric power generation” (North 1999, 751).

In view of a common understanding to reach a “solution”, it is vital to explore contextual issues and tacit/implicit knowledge – they determine the degree of societal understanding of the eventual disposition system. It is useful to specify what may be “common ground”. Trying to decompose ever-used buzzwords like “consensus” or “compromise” one may outline where and how “common ground” is likely to be achieved. We cannot assume to reach consensus “at heart”, in the stakeholders’ core beliefs. Society must, however, agree on three levels: 1. Problem recognition: The waste exists, the problem must be “solved”, at least set on track to be solved; 2. Main goal consensus: The degree of protection and intervention must be defined; according to the scientific consent, passive safety must prevail; 3. Procedural strategy: The “rules of the game” (to find a suitable site and to implement disposal) have to be clear from the outset.

The present proposal (Flüeler 2023) avoids an undue complexity reduction and a decontextualised “technical fix” or, for that matter, “social fix” (with volunteering communities in the forefront). It is based on a thorough comparison of national waste programmes.

____________________

North, D.W. 1999. A perspective on nuclear waste. Risk Analysis. 19/4. 751-758. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00444.x.

Flüeler, T. 2023. Governance of radioactive waste, special waste and carbon storage. Literacy in dealing with long-term controversial sociotechnical issues. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham. 145 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-03902-7.