Intergenerational Ethical Issues and Communication Related to High-Level Nuclear Waste Repositories.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The nuclear power industry started in the 1950s and has now reached a phase of disposing high-level nuclear waste. Since the 1980s, the United Nations has developed a concept of sustainable development and governments have accordingly made ethical commitments to take responsibility towards future generations. The purpose of this review is to examine ethical dilemmas related to high-level nuclear waste disposal in a long-term perspective including potential access to the waste in the future. The time span considered here is 100,000 years based on current experts' assessment of the radiological toxicity of the waste. RECENT FINDINGS: In this review, we take into account findings on ethical issues related to the disposal of high-level nuclear waste put forward by the Radioactive Waste Management Committee (RWMC), the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), nuclear waste management companies (SKB in Sweden and Posiva Oy in Finland), and several researchers. Some historical examples are presented for potential guidance on methods of communication into the future. According to the sustainable development ethical principle, adopted by the United Nations, we conclude that governments with nuclear energy have committed themselves to protect future generations from harm related to high-level nuclear waste. This commitment involves the necessity to convey information together with the nuclear waste. Our paper examines disposal options chosen by Sweden and Finland, as well as some contemporary and historical efforts to design messages towards the future. We conclude that the international community still needs to find methods to communicate in an intelligible way over long periods of time.

Temporal Limits on What Engineers Can Plan.

My question is: How far into the future is it possible for engineers as such to plan? For example, the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository was to have been designed to store nuclear waste safely for between ten thousand and one million years. Is that the sort of planning engineers as such can do? The planning engineers do would not be philosophically interesting were it not in general so often successful, much more successful than the gambles of ordinary life. So, how is such planning possible-and what are its limits. Is one million years beyond the limits of what engineers, as such, can plan? Is a thousand years? Is a hundred years? Is there an nth generation for what engineers can plan? The answer I consider here is that engineers can plan only as far into the future as they can reasonably expect engineers to be present. That is only a few generations at most.

Two Paradigmatic Waves of Public Discourse on Nuclear Waste in the United States, 1945-2009: Understanding a Magnitudinal and Longitudinal Phenomenon in Anthropological Terms.

This project set out to illuminate the discursive existence of nuclear waste in American culture. Given the significant temporal dimension of the phenomenon as well as the challenging size of the United States setting, the project adapted key methodological elements of the sociocultural anthropology tradition and produced proxies for ethnographic fieldnotes and key informant interviews through sampling the digital archives of the New York Times over a 64-year period that starts with the first recorded occurrence of the notion of nuclear waste and ends with the conclusion of the presidency of George W. Bush. Two paradigmatic waves of American public discourse on nuclear waste come to light when subjecting this empirical data to quantitative inventorying and interpretive analysis: between 1945 and 1969 nuclear waste was generally framed in light of the beneficial utilizations of nuclear reactions and with optimistic expectations for a scientific/technological solution; by contrast, between 1969 and 2009 nuclear waste was conceptualized as inherited harm that could not be undone and contestation that required political/legal management. Besides this key finding and the empirical timing of the two paradigms, the study's value lies also with its detailed empirical documentation of nuclear waste in its sociocultural existence.

Specifying the Concept of Future Generations for Addressing Issues Related to High-Level Radioactive Waste.

The nuclear community frequently refers to the concept of "future generations" when discussing the management of high-level radioactive waste. However, this notion is generally not defined. In this context, we have to assume a wide definition of the concept of future generations, conceived as people who will live after the contemporary people are dead. This definition embraces thus each generation following ours, without any restriction in time. The aim of this paper is to show that, in the debate about nuclear waste, this broad notion should be further specified and to clarify the related implications for nuclear waste management policies. Therefore, we provide an ethical analysis of different management strategies for high-level waste in the light of two principles, protection of future generations-based on safety and security-and respect for their choice. This analysis shows that high-level waste management options have different ethical impacts across future generations, depending on whether the memory of the waste and its location is lost, or not. We suggest taking this distinction into account by introducing the notions of "close future generations" and "remote future generations", which has important implications on nuclear waste management policies insofar as it stresses that a retrievable disposal has fewer benefits than usually assumed.

Nuclear Waste Facing the Test of Time: The Case of the French Deep Geological Repository Project.

The purpose of this article is to consider the socio-anthropological issues raised by the deep geological repository project for high-level, long-lived nuclear waste. It is based on fieldwork at a candidate site for a deep storage project in eastern France, where an underground laboratory has been studying the feasibility of the project since 1999. A project of this nature, based on the possibility of very long containment (hundreds of thousands of years, if not longer), involves a singular form of time. By linking project performance to geology's very long timescale, the project attempts "jump" in time, focusing on a far distant future, without understanding it in terms of generations. But these future generations remain measurements of time on the surface, where the issue of remembering or forgetting the repository comes to the fore. The nuclear waste geological storage project raises questions that neither politicians nor scientists, nor civil society, have ever confronted before. This project attempts to address a problem that exists on a very long timescale, which involves our responsibility toward generations in the far future.

Framing ethical acceptability: a problem with nuclear waste in Canada.

Ethical frameworks are often used in professional fields as a means of providing explicit ethical guidance for individuals and institutions when confronted with ethically important decisions. The notion of an ethical framework has received little critical attention, however, and the concept subsequently lends itself easily to misuse and ambiguous application. This is the case with the 'ethical framework' offered by Canada's Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), the crown-corporation which owns and is responsible for the long-term management of Canada's high-level nuclear fuel waste. It makes a very specific claim, namely that it is managing Canada's long-lived radioactive nuclear fuel waste in an ethically responsible manner. According to this organization, what it means to behave in an ethically responsible manner is to act and develop policy in accordance with its ethical framework. What, then, is its ethical framework, and can it be satisfied? In this paper I will show that the NWMO's ethical and social framework is deeply flawed in two respects: (a) it fails to meet the minimum requirements of a code of ethic or ethical framework by offering only questions, and no principles or rules of conduct; and (b) if posed as principles or rules of conduct, some of its questions are unsatisfiable. In particular, I will show that one of its claims, namely that it seek informed consent from individuals exposed to risk of harm from nuclear waste, cannot be satisfied as formulated. The result is that the NWMO's ethical framework is not, at present, ethically acceptable.

To recycle or not to recycle? An intergenerational approach to nuclear fuel cycles.

This paper approaches the choice between the open and closed nuclear fuel cycles as a matter of intergenerational justice, by revealing the value conflicts in the production of nuclear energy. The closed fuel cycle improve sustainability in terms of the supply certainty of uranium and involves less long-term radiological risks and proliferation concerns. However, it compromises short-term public health and safety and security, due to the separation of plutonium. The trade-offs in nuclear energy are reducible to a chief trade-off between the present and the future. To what extent should we take care of our produced nuclear waste and to what extent should we accept additional risks to the present generation, in order to diminish the exposure of future generation to those risks? The advocates of the open fuel cycle should explain why they are willing to transfer all the risks for a very long period of time (200,000 years) to future generations. In addition, supporters of the closed fuel cycle should underpin their acceptance of additional risks to the present generation and make the actual reduction of risk to the future plausible.