Externalities and Internalisation of Radioactive Waste Producing Activities: The Analogy With Environmental Practices

Author(s):  
Pierre L. Kunsch

Abstract All human activities generate negative externalities, in particular the use of radioactive material for electricity production and radioisotope applications. Both activities produce radioactive waste, which can, therefore, be considered as being specific externalities. The purpose of the paper is to investigate these externalities and to identify appropriate internalisation instruments. Analogue cases in environmental management are discussed. In general the nuclear externalities are not internalised in the management costs charged by Radioactive Waste agencies (RAWA). The paper explores the possibility of having an internalisation of all costs as requested by the strict application of the Polluter Pays Principle. In the case of electricity production a comparison is made between the externalities attributed to nuclear waste and those in relation with CO2-emissions from the combustion of fossil fuel. A brief overview is given on the evaluation approach in ExternE (“Externalities of Energy”). The evaluations are the basis for the design of a carbon tax applicable to fossil fuels for reducing CO2-emissions. A similar tax could be charged on radioactive waste management. Beyond the internalisation objective, the tax proceeds could finance the technological R&D for improving the conditions of storage and disposal, and provide compensations to local residents in the vicinity of nuclear waste management facilities. The management of spent radioisotope equipment in medicine, research, or industry is shown to have similar features to the management of packages, spent electrical appliances, and the disposal of batteries. In general the price of management of the spent material is not included in the purchase price. In case of spent radioisotope equipment, the externality mainly represents the risk of this material becoming a hazard for the public health. It is recommended to internalise the full costs of management to eliminate this risk. Moreover spent material should be registered and RAWA should maintain detailed inventories on their national territories. In order to induce the free return of spent material to the RAWA, deposit refund systems could be set in place as in the package or battery market. A surcharge is paid by purchase, which is refunded to the buyers when they return the product for recycling or proper disposal. The paper concludes by describing lessons and possible implications of the previously discussed environmental tax or surcharge systems on the way the Polluter-Pays Principle is applied in radioactive waste management.

1996 ◽  
Vol 465 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. R. Triay ◽  
M. J. Apted

The role of performance assessment was discussed by a group of panelists and the participants of the 20th MRS symposium on the “Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management.” Panel members were Professor Thomas Pigford, Dr. Alan Cooper, and Dr. Patrik Sellin; Dr. Michael J. Apted served as moderator. For discussion purposes, “performance assessment” (PA) was defined as the analysis of the release of radionuclides from a repository system of barriers to the accessible environment.


Author(s):  
E. William Colglazier

A sustained and definitive radioactive waste management policy has been a elusive goal for our nation since the beginning of the nuclear age. An atmosphere of contentiousness and mistrust among the interested parties, fed by a long history of policy reversals, delays, false starts, legal and jurisdictional wrangles, and scientific overconfidence and played out against the background of public concern with nuclear power and weapons issues generally, has dogged society's attempts to come to grips with the radioactive waste-management issue. The policy conflicts have become so intense and intractable that Congress has been forced to deal with the issue periodically. The year 1982 was one watershed year for congressional action on high-level nuclear waste, and 1987 proved to be another. This chapter will examine ethical and value issues in radioactive waste management (RWM), with a special emphasis on disputes about scientific evidence. Controversies over evidence have been particularly important because of the many scientific uncertainties and problems inherent in trying to ensure that nuclear waste in a geological repository will harm neither people nor the environment for the thousands of years that the waste will remain hazardous. This requirement of guaranteeing adequate safety over millennia is an unprecedented undertaking for our regulatory and scientific institutions. The first section of the chapter will provide a brief historical overview of the national policy disputes in radioactive waste management, and the second section will discuss some of the key value issues that have been at the heart of the controversies. Our approach is to delineate key policy issues and to separate the value components of each into three categories: procedural, distributional, and evidential. Key stakeholders—Congress, federal agencies, the nuclear industry, utilities, environmental groups, state governments, Native American tribes, local communities—take particular policy positions justified in part on the basis of procedural, distributional, and evidential values. Procedural values refer to who should make what decision for whom and by what process. Distributional values concern what is a fair allocation of costs, benefits, and risks to the affected parties and to society as a whole. Evidential values refer to what counts as evidence, for example, what type and degree of scientific evidence is sufficient and admissible in making a particular societal decision, especially in the face of large scientific unknowns and significant social and scientific debate. Categories of "value concerns" thus include fairness and appropriateness of process, outcomes, and evidence.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document