Globally, radioactive waste governance has been subject to a participatory-deliberative turn. Increasing the opportunities for public involvement is presented as a means to build trust and to alleviate siting conflicts over facility construction. However, a move towards community partnership and voluntarism in site selection belies a lack of social control over technology choice, given the oft-repeated claim of a settled global scientific consensus on the safety and efficacy of waste disposal in a mined geological disposal facility (GDF) 450-800m below the surface. Consensus on the GDF concept is critiqued as a form of ‘sticky knowledge’ and path dependency within a socio-technical regime that began in the 1960s to the exclusion of alternatives. One contemporary alternative is the deep borehole disposal (DBD) concept. DBD emplaces spent fuel, plutonium or higher-activity wastes in boreholes to a depth 5 km below the surface. In this paper DBD is subject to socio-technical analysis extending to six inter-related considerations concerning: cost, land use, decision-making scale, trust, geographic distribution and temporality. DBD is presented as a preferred solution to a GDF because it ameliorates the challenges associated with inflexible megaproject development. Such challenges include project size, timing, and cost over-runs that limit the social acceptability of mined repositories at the community scale. DBD, by contrast, is an incremental technology strategy. A DBD-focused solution lowers public costs and decision-thresholds, localizes waste disposal by reducing transportation, and shortens the timeframe from decision-to-implementation. Together these factors encourage communities to take an active role in the decision process, maintaining vigilant mistrust and accountability in ways that are not possible for a multi-generational, national-scale GDF. DBD is therefore proffered as a means to improve the overall social acceptability of higher activity radioactive waste disposal siting processes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Matthew Cotton (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: