Читать книгу Management of Radioactive Waste - Jean-Claude Amiard - Страница 12

Compared to other categories of waste, the quantity of radioactive waste is relatively small. In France, nuclear waste represents 2 kg per year per inhabitant [AND 17a], compared to 580 kg of household waste, 900 kg of non-construction waste and 3.4 tons of industrial waste [ADE 20]. But these residues represent an immense problem because some of them are extremely radioactive and remain harmful over excessively long time scales, for some hundreds of thousands or millions of years, that humanity cannot control.

What can we do with this radioactive waste? In the past, the ocean has served as a dumping ground for nuclear powers, which have immersed tens of thousands of radioactive drums. This time is fortunately over. Some eccentric people have suggested dropping them into space. Fortunately, the idea was not pursued. The solution now being considered for the most dangerous waste is to bury it in deep layers of clay, granite, salt or tuff, hoping that nature and geology will compensate for the weaknesses of human technology [AMI 13]. Sweden was the first nation to choose an underground storage site. All other countries, faced with the concerns of their populations and the vagaries of political changes, have postponed their decisions. On the contrary, in the United States, the suspension of the Yucca Mountain storage project in Nevada, which was ready to open, is a sign of the American administration’s desire to listen to the public. However, the State must find a new solution.

Since no alternative solution is yet mature, we must take our time in making a decision that will commit humanity for a long time. France, like Canada, Switzerland and Japan, has made the principle of reversibility central to its doctrine. On the contrary, Sweden and Finland do not require it, and the United Kingdom is still considering it. It is not only a question of being able to recover radioactive packages, but of leaving the decision-making process open and giving it back to the political institutions. Parliament has once again become the master of nuclear waste management and future generations have the guarantee that nothing will be decided inescapably. The approach is virtuous. Let us hope that it is not an admission of powerlessness in the face of an insoluble puzzle [AMI 13]. It should also be emphasized that this postponement amounts in practice to leaving to future generations the care to manage and pay for the waste produced by the present generation.

Those responsible for the civilian and especially the military use of nuclear energy have in the past been very unaware of the seriousness with which the problem of nuclear waste is treated today. For example, the Hanford site in the United States was heavily polluted by unauthorized dumping during intensive plutonium production after World War II. Recently, six underground tanks leaked. In the former Soviet Union (USSR), waste in the form of highly active liquid solutions was injected directly into deep storage [MAC 96]. The United Kingdom in particular, but also other countries, and even France, have thrown drums of waste into international waters, a practice that is now prohibited [CAS 02].

Nuclear energy has been questioned almost since its inception and one of the main problems concerning its social acceptability in the world is the management of nuclear waste [ROD 17]. It is therefore imperative that nuclear nations manage radioactive waste in an exemplary way.