DAVID HESS | OPINION


The distinction between precisely which radioactive substances are classified as resources and which as waste suddenly becomes very important to operators and advanced technology developers, with decisions potentially quite arbitrary. Industry and its regulators do need to periodically reappraise some of these materials, as well as the accepted conventions of nuclear waste management and disposal


negatively towards it. A simple change of language means you don’t get that emotional response and can more readily establish a social license. Which is cool, but what happens later when that


person either works out or is told that spent nuclear fuel is the dreaded nuclear waste bugbear, and the industry spokesperson just obfuscated? Does this really help to build trust? There seems to be a high potential for such a strategy to backfire. This word substitution is, at best, a delaying tactic. It does provide a chance for other knowledge to sink in without gut-level rejection getting in the way though. An added complication is that the steps industry outlines


to deal with the material in question sure makes it sound like it’s a hazardous waste. The evergreen science author Malcom Grimston has frequently pointed out the absurdity of trying to tell people that nuclear energy is safe and then outlining, in painful detail and scary jargon, all the steps we take to make it so. Similarly, if you are trying to convince someone that a material is not a waste but then tell them you need to eventually bury it 500 metres+ underground to isolate it from the natural environment for at least 300,000 years, well that’s a non sequitur. Get your story straight. In fact, the nuclear industry has responded to public


waste fears over the decades by introducing management practices and disposal expectations well beyond those required for other potentially hazardous substances. Massive concrete pools and storage casks, fully-funded programmes for future geological disposal, ever-diminishing dose tolerances for nuclear workers – it’s an impressive list. Depending on which nuclear experts you ask this


ratcheting of requirements is either a point of great technical pride or an overly-reactive mistake which has added unnecessary cost and complexity to nuclear operations. We have taken an excessive engineering and regulatory ‘hammer’ to what is mostly a psychological and educational ‘nail’. Relatively few recognise that while this is meant to assure the public of the safety of our industry, it often makes them more afraid of it. The same debate exists around nuclear industry safety


practices as well. Of course, it is more a theoretical debate than a practical one, as in reality so much of the nuclear industry is dedicated to precisely these two matters. Whether ideal or not, sky-high standards for safety and waste management are the reality of the nuclear industry today. There is little sign of this changing anytime soon. In truth, there is no great mystery over when or whether


it is correct to call spent nuclear fuel nuclear waste and it’s strange this subject gets as much attention as it does. Everyone innately understands that the difference between


waste and valuable material is entirely subjective. One person’s trash is another person’s treasure, and so forth. The difference between whether something is garbage or a resource boils down purely to what you intend to do with it. Acceptance of this ambiguity should also apply in the


nuclear case. In practice it means that we don’t need to be quite so paranoid about correcting every instance where spent nuclear fuel (of uncertain future destination) is labelled as waste. While spent nuclear fuel is the technically more correct term, if your stakeholders are calling it waste then that’s probably what you should call it too. So it’s ok to refer to spent nuclear fuel occasionally as


‘waste’ even if it may end up being eventually re-used. The industry should focus more on enhancing public understanding and putting risks in context rather than being language-police. Alas it is not the end of things, because increasingly it is not the public we have to convince. It is regulators and governments. Radioactive and nuclear materials are typically allowed


to move across borders and be bought and sold by various responsible actors. By contrast, radioactive wastes are not, with many countries maintaining import and export restrictions. Nuclear materials are considered a key input for science, energy, medicine and industry. Nuclear wastes are an environmental burden that gets dealt with per intergenerational equity and the polluter-pays principle. The distinction between precisely which radioactive


substances are classified as resources and which as waste suddenly becomes very important to operators and advanced technology developers, with decisions potentially quite arbitrary. Industry and its regulators do need to periodically reappraise some of these materials, as well as the accepted conventions of nuclear waste management and disposal. To be clear, there is no doubt that sufficient management and disposal funds are entirely integral to sustainable nuclear operations. Internalising potential externalities remains key. However, insisting on national approaches to management and disposal just blocks the creation of future effective international markets for processing, recycling and disposal services. This situation really begs for change. The industry needs to get more comfortable with nuclear


waste. This means being charitable towards people who might apply the label a bit loosely, but it also means getting rid of some of the mindsets that currently prevent the establishment of practical solutions. Because arguably the best solution for nuclear waste concerns is still actually getting it into the ground. ■


www.neimagazine.com | September 2024 | 15


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49