Risk Management in the Geological Disposal - Essay Example

Risk Management Table of Content Topic and Chapter Number Page Number 0 Introduction 02 2.0 An Overview 03 3.0 Public Concern 04 4.0 Public Opinion 06 5.0 Incentives 07 6.0 Conclusion 08 7.0 References 10 1.0 Introduction It is very difficult to make general statements about Chemical, Biological, Radioactive, and Nuclear (CBRN) substances because of the wide range and variety of effects, toxicity and concentrations that it could generate, if not safeguarded. The principal challenges of chemical, biological and radiological decontamination of the environment are: Chemicals are easy to find and isolate, but difficult to destroy and can generate toxic waste by-products. Biological substances are easy to destroy but difficult to find and isolate and it is hard to be certain they are fully removed Radioactive substances can be isolated, but impossible to destroy. They must be removed to a highly inaccessible area and containerized (UK Resilience, 2006). In 2003 the UK government established an advisory body, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), to consult and make a strong recommendation to the government on a long-term management strategy to remove nuclear wastes from possible human contact. After considering all possible options; including one’s that were proposed in the past, and considering past and current practices in other countries, CoRWM recommended deep geological disposal of the wastes in specially constructed underground chambers as the best possible solution to disposal of nuclear and toxic wastes. This proposal had been blocked by local bodies in the 90s, citing health hazards. To overcome strong resentment, the government was more than willing to develop partnerships with potential candidate sites. What is geological disposal? Geological disposal is a long-term waste management option involving the placement of radioactive waste in an engineered repository at between 200 and 1000 metres underground where rock structures provide a barrier against the escape of radioactivity. This process has been successful implemented in many countries in the west and the UK has also been a major beneficiary of this technique. However, there remains a core group in UK who find this hard to believe and have blocked moves by the government to implement it in many communities around UK. 2.0 An Overview The UK has a history of failure of finding an acceptable site for the disposal of intermediate and high level radioactive waste (ILW and HLW). Limited space and local opposition are two factors that contribute to this problem. Under the circumstances, the largest volumes of waste are stored at the Sellafield site in West Cumbria, in addition to significant volumes of waste stored at the various nuclear power stations around the country. This is a temporary solution as, in addition to this waste, created through fifty years of nuclear operations, will be the waste produced by the decommissioning of the older generation of nuclear facilities. The current estimate of the total radioactive waste inventory after decommissioning is complete is around 238,400 m3 of ILW and 2,710 m3 of HLW. Higher activity waste from the nuclear, chemical, and biological industries, involved in military uses and academic research, is to be managed through long term geological disposal. This involves placing radioactive and other toxic wastes in facilities deep underground, where the rock structures will provide a barrier against radioactivity. The decision was in keeping with the recommendation of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) in July. Geological disposal was identified by CoRWM as being the option that would perform best in terms of security and protecting the public and the environment. In order to safeguard public interests, planning and development of geological disposal will be based on: 1. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority with shoulder all responsibilities and accountabilities to address local sentiments 2. There will be a strong and independent regulation by statutory regulators, such as the Health and Safety Executive, the environment agencies and the Office for Civil Nuclear Security; 3. Appointment of an Independent scrutiny and advice to Government by a successor body, built on CoRWM principles 4. Most importantly, there is to be an open and transparent partnership with potential host communities for disposal facilities (defra, 2006). 3.0 Public Concern Public health hazards have been cited for dissuading waste disposal operations in areas of human occupation. The imbalance to the eco-system is also an important issue. The government policy to go ahead with deep geological disposal of the wastes in specially constructed underground chambers to dispose nuclear and toxic wastes came in for criticism and was blocked by the local bodies where they were to be grounded. Mishaps have happened in the past from leaks in reactors, and toxic seepage into riverbeds causing lose to flora and fauna. Radiation can be crippling and fatal. As mentioned in the earlier chapter, independent regulation is a key to ensure the safety of people and the environment, apart from securing confidence and trust in delivery arrangements. The resentment of the local population to toxic exposure is quite justifiable, said Mr. Miliband, Environment Secretary, in an address to Parliament. He reiterated his strong support for developing a strong partnership with local communities over the selection of sites for disposal facilities. This is a measure to involve all concerned in the selection process. The process thus involved the community personnel and stakeholders. He went on to say that the sentiments of the people will be kept in mind, when selecting a geologically suitable area. All factors will be taken into consideration, including geological and scientific considerations, and societal considerations. For a successful programme, both criteria will have to be met; he added (defra, 2006). In order to educate the masses on the safety aspects of deep geological disposal technique, the government highlighted CoRWM report on the geological disposal approach adopted by the majority of other nuclear nations, including in Belgium, France, Finland, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States. However, for most, Chernobyl stood as a landmark event in recent history which had demonstrated the potential for harm from radioactivity. Radioactive waste was widely linked with cancer and deformation at birth. The local population believed that there were more dire consequences to exposure to radiation (CORWM, p.116-2, 2006). In order to bring about a compromise between varying factions (Read local communities, and the Nuclear disposal agency), the agency needed to propose programmes and plans for the management and disposal of LLW, which allowed for an equitable approach. The principles included were: Provision for early local community input into the decision-making process; Openness and transparency at all stages Provision of well prepared, good quality, accurate and easily understandable briefing material The institution of partnership arrangements with local communities where appropriate Use of an iterative consultation process where appropriate (defra, 2006). 4.0 Public Opinion Geological disposal is based on extremely long period of containment of the waste, which with time loses its level of radioactivity through decay. Many centuries later, when the engineered barriers fail and some radioactivity escapes into the surrounding rocks, groundwater, and finally the biosphere, the level of radioactivity is expected to be insignificant in terms of impact on human health and the environment. The local response to such a scenario is quite contrary. Responses suggested that some people were sceptical of this, pointing out that, regardless of other uncertainties associated with disposal, the engineered barriers could fail relatively quickly, causing widespread damage to human beings (CORWM, p.117-6, 2006). In the backdrop of such uncertainties, there is a conspicuous difference in response from nuclear and non-nuclear communities for hosting a nuclear facility. It has been seen that, despite reservations, communities that are nuclear, are more receptive to geological disposal techniques than their non-nuclear contemporaries. A reason for this can be attributed to their experience to geological disposal operatives in their community, and because of the security awareness programmes. The non-nuclear communities will revolt and block any move by CoRWM to identify their community for geological waste disposal. Apprehensions in the form of engineering defects, leakage and sabotage of toxic material into water and air, imbalance in eco-system, and acts of terrorism confound their fear. This is for the same reason why local communities blocked the move of the then government of the 1990s from implementing the geological waste disposal scheme. 5.0 Incentives The government extended an incentive scheme in rewarding the communities that came forward to accept this scheme on waste disposal. Once a community expressed its willingness to participate in a dialogue, the government agency began discussing a suitable compensation to that community development. The government saw this compensation as an incentive for the responsibility undertaken by the people of that particular community on behalf of the whole society. Incentives in the form of financial disbursement for regional development, both social and economic were given to those communities that proposed to establish a partnership with CoRWM in implementing this waste disposal scheme (CORWM, p.41, Ch.6, 2006). Those who participated in this dialogue were selected from selected citizens, stakeholders and representatives of nuclear communities engaged in forums, together with those involved in voluntary forums. They had to: Attend an initial one day meeting to discuss issues and concerns in relation to radioactive waste and the MRWS process, and secure agreement on the context, content and conduct of the assessment Attend 1st Weekend Meeting to discuss the wastes and options for their management; and to develop a set of socially relevant criteria for the assessment of the options Attend 2nd Weekend Meeting to assimilate information and evidence; conduct a multi-criteria analysis of core options against the agreed set of criteria; evaluate results (Jacquie Burgess, Jason Chilvers & John Murlis, 2003). 6.0 Conclusion Various factors play a part in the selection of a suitable site, of which geological stability is an important part. The most critical factor in political terms is local acceptance of site. A lot of countries with nuclear processing plants have encountered similar problems. The United Kingdom is no different. The government had to win the people over to proceed with its plan to go in for geological waste disposal, a current success with many countries in Europe. In order to achieve this, they had to look for avenues to involve the communities in discussion. Incentive in the form of community development was offered to those communities that came forward to accept the government’s proposal. Despite apprehension about the success of such a critical project, CoRWM was able to convince the government and the public, including stakeholders on the safety measures. 6.0 References 1. UK Resilience, A service of the Cabinet Office, 14 July, 2006, http://www.ukresilience.info/emergencies/cbrn_docs/defra/recovery.shtm Miliband announces radioactive waste disposal plan, News Release, http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2006/061025b.htm Jacquie Burgess, Jason Chilvers & John Murlis, 2003, Managing Radioactive Waste Safely, P.8, http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/publications/complete/pdf/radwaste_outline.pdf 2. CORWM, Final Recommendations, Geological Disposal, Chapter 15, 2, Repository Design Concepts, http://www.corwm.org.uk/pdf/Chapter15.pdf CORWM, An ethical problem, Chapter 6, 25, Intra-generational equity, http://www.corwm.org.uk/pdf/Chapter06.pdf Read More