Results 1 - 6 of 6
Results 1 - 6 of 6. Search took: 0.043 seconds
|Sort by: date | relevance|
[en] This study is an English translation and slight update of a previous study originally commissioned by the Swiss Federal Office of Energy between 2008 and 2010. The intention was to investigate the 'state of the art' on marking with a view to learning lessons for geological repositories. This is an edited and slightly updated English translation, published by the NEA as part of the RWMC project 'The Preservation of Records, Knowledge and Memory (RK and M) across Generations'. The work is conceived as a literature study. It considers over 150 texts, published between 1928 and 2013. Texts published between the 1990 and 2010 form a majority, making the 1990's and 2000's the dominant era. The texts include technical reports, journal articles, conference proceedings, implementation plans, national regulations, and full-length books. Some publications are specifically about the concept, implementation and requirements for Markers. Others consider the geological disposal of radioactive from other points of view - for example, archiving, or intrusion scenarios. Others are publications on history or futurism, including histories of genocide and language, and the possibilities of communication far into the future. Authors of the texts include academies, international organisations, consultants commissioned by national organisations, regulators, implementers, and protest groups. It should be recognised that, whilst care has been taken to provide a wide and representative study, the concept of 'marking' a geological repository was first established in the USA. The available literature on Markers is still dominated by work carried out in the USA in the 1980's, 1990's and 2000's. The conclusions and points of view surveyed are therefore weighted towards this body of work. The study brings together the knowledge and experience from the field of marking and archiving from the last few decades and provides an overview of the present status of discussions on the topic. It is an interdisciplinary study and covers as wide a range as possible of the perspectives from which marking needs to be considered - that is, safety, risks, the technologies to be used, and the possibilities for communicating with future generations. These deliberations should highlight the problems, strengths and contradictions associated with marking. 28 different topics were selected; these are summarised into six topical blocks: Block 1: Fundamental Questions on the Topic of Marking (questions 0); Block 2: Questions on Humans and Society (question A); Block 3: The Environment and Underground Space (questions B); Block 4: Marking and Structures (questions C); Block 5: Transmitting Information over Time (questions D); Block 6: The Susceptibility to Failure of Marking Systems (questions E). Each of these blocks is introduced by briefly presenting a potential problem and questions in the technical literature are then addressed. Each of these is then considered briefly from the personal viewpoint of the author. What is novel about this study is the perspective from which marking or safety is considered. It looks at the possible driving forces behind human and social actions that could influence marking programmes or make them superfluous. It is notable that the same thoughts voiced by specialised institutions, bodies and authors as well as lay persons are raised repeatedly in the literature, which suggests that the key safety problems and the most important weak points, in communicating over time have largely been identified. It is the opinion of the author that knowledge from history and society should have a corrective influence on current repository concepts and projects in the different countries using nuclear energy. One concept to note is humanity's propensity to recycle, as examined by Poeschke and exemplified in the study. This suggests the possibility of future generations re-appropriating the materials used to construct the repository or markers, as well as being concerned with the radioactive waste stored in the repository. The literature study shows that technic al questions concerning markers and to some extent archiving have largely been raised and discussed, but questions on how to implement marking and archiving are less well established. The lack of consensus in this area indicates that there is scope for further research into how to implement different marking and archiving concepts
[en] A recognized waste disposal concept and its troubles. For about 40 years, deep geological disposal of radioactive and chemical waste has become the most widely recognized strategy for eliminating waste. However, this pole position in the ranking of concepts contrasts with the daily lived situation in the field, as exposed here.
[en] The RK and M project was launched in 2010, and is seeking, among other things, to gain insights into the factors influencing the loss and recovery of knowledge and memory preservation in areas other than nuclear wastes. One area with similar characteristics, and therefore well-suited for comparisons, is that of landfills and old industrial or disposal sites for hazardous wastes. This report presents the results of an analysis of selected case studies of landfills and contaminated sites in Europe and other industrialized nations. Based on a two-part methodology (chapter 2), the study identifies common key factors relating to the loss of information, records, knowledge and memory (chapter 3) and defines criteria for the selection of cases to be examined in depth (chapter 4), as the number of landfills and disposal sites created during the last 100 years is high. Using these criteria, 21 cases of conventional, non-nuclear waste disposal from Switzerland, Germany and the United States have been selected. They are analysed in the final chapter of the study. The 21 examples were drawn from a very large number of known disposal sites. It is considered that although only a small number of examples was analysed, the range of wastes and waste management practice was sufficiently broad to indicate trends and allow firm conclusions to be drawn. A key conclusion from this study is that it is rare to lose all information about waste disposal, but t h a t the details tend to be lost first. It is also clear that many records are made with insufficient data to inform remediation actions, and that once lost, records are very difficult to re-construct. The study was based on identifying the key factors that are considered important with respect to the loss of knowledge. A number of sub-factors were identified under each of these headings, resulting in a total of 18 specific reasons for memory loss. Each of the 21 examples was analysed against these 18 reasons, and many of them showed multiple reasons for memory loss. Finally, this case study provides some key insights for the future management of information and archives, and for maximizing the potential for successful retention of knowledge and memory. It is important to recognize that the bodies responsible for the nuclear industry will have to address the problems related to the preservation of knowledge and memory in a very fundamental and pro-active way. It is still unclear to what extent policy makers and authorities in the nuclear field are really aware of the importance of preserving knowledge and of the necessity to build up a culture of memory. As the history of landfills shows, failures in the past with regards to information and knowledge management are largely responsible for the problems and the subsequent costs of remediation programs. From this perspective it is essential to supplement the existing laws of those countries that utilise nuclear energy, in order to store relevant knowledge for the future
[en] The amount of nuclear waste is growing worldwide. But even 70 years after the beginning of the nuclear age, no country in the world has found a real solution for the radiating legacy of nuclear power. The final disposal of nuclear waste poses major challenges to governments worldwide. No country has a final disposal site for nuclear waste in operation yet; Finland is the only country that is currently constructing a permanent repository. Most countries have yet develop and implement a functioning waste management strategy for all kinds of nuclear waste. Governments differ widely on their nuclear waste approaches: in trying to find a final repository, how to classify nuclear waste, which safety standards to require from operators, and how to secure funding for the ever-growing costs to pay for all of this. With reactors across the world approaching the end of their lives, decommissioning and dismantling of nuclear power plants will become increasingly important. This process will produce even more radioactive waste. In absence of final disposal sites, most of the high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel must be stored for many decades, challenging the safety requirements for storage facilities and causing much higher costs than previously estimated. Overall, there is a lack of understanding about how countries around the world are trying to address the complex challenges that nuclear waste poses. The World Nuclear Waste Report aims to change that. This first edition focuses on Europe and presents the latest facts and figures on nuclear waste and its challenges.
[en] At the beginning of 1999, talks between the Swiss Federal Government, the siting Cantons (Cantons in which nuclear power plants are located and Canton Nidwalden), environmental organisations and the nuclear power plant operators on the lifetime of the existing power plants and solution of the waste management problem failed to reach a satisfactory outcome. In view of this, the Head of the Federal Department for the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communication (UVEK) decided to set up the Expert Group on Disposal Concepts for Radioactive Waste (EKRA) in June 1999. EKRA then worked on providing the background for a comparison of different waste management concepts. The group developed the concept of monitored long-term geological disposal and compared this with geological disposal, interim storage and indefinite storage. The aspects of active and passive safety, monitoring and control, as well as retrievability of waste were at the fore-front of these deliberations. This report presents the conclusions and recommendations of EKRA
[en] The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and its Radioactive Waste Management Committee (RWMC) proudly celebrate the 10. anniversary of the Forum on Stakeholder Confidence with a one-day open Colloquium in Paris. The Colloquium takes stock of FSC achievements, conducts a multi-stakeholder discussion of important themes in the governance of radioactive waste management, and gathers guidance on new directions to be taken by the FSC in coming years. The Colloquium welcomes some 80 participants: local and national opinion leaders and stakeholder representatives, government policy and regulatory officials, R and D specialists, implementers and industry representatives from 16 countries, and journalists. This report brings together the presentations (slides) given at this colloquium: 1 - Update since September 2009, The 10-year Anniversary Colloquium; Review of the RWMC and its working parties; Review of countries' input and RWMC project vision (C. Pescatore); 2 - State-of-the-art Report on Marker Systems for Radioactive Waste Repositories (M. Buser); 3 - Consideration of Social Scientific Aspects in a Safety Case for a Geological Repository in Germany, Results of a Research Project (B. Kallenbach-Herbert); 4 - Interplay Among Stakeholders for the Definition of the Detailed Geological Survey Zone in the Meuse/Haute-Marne (Andra); 5 - Regulatory Guidance on Retrievability (D. Brazier); 6 - Sogin engagement process 2010, Focus on involvement of economic operators as a part of the local community (Sogin); 7 - The role of the Government in territorial development of Meuse/Haute-Marne (Andra); 8 - Cooperating with regional elected authorities, some cases in Spain (M. Molina); 9 - Regional development and economic growth (C. Blom); 10 - Seeking transparency, Collective Action... (C. Pescatore); 11 - Introduction and overview of country responses to the transparency questionnaire (E. Simic); 12 - EC initiatives/support towards enhanced transparency and citizens participation in nuclear matters (J. Coadou); 13 - Main achievements on the Transparency of Nuclear Regulatory activities (K. de Beule); 14 - European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG); 15 - Celebrating 10 Years of Learning From Stakeholders and Each Other (J.P. Kotra); 16 - Looking back into the past: the first five years of FSC (Y. Le Bars); 17 - An archived site for alpha beta gamma 1994-2009 (C. Massart); 18 - FSC lessons: Are they specific to RWM? (F.G. Hermosilla); 19 - FSC on the Fence (FSC); 20 - Inclusive Governance of RWM, Is it here? How far does it reach? (G. Heriard Dubreuil); 21 - Local partnerships - vain experiment or a way to sustainable participation? (N. Zeleznik); 22 - Confidence: forms and foundations (O'Connor, M.); 23 - The FSC - A Host Country's Perspective - Canada 2002 (Natural Resources Canada); 24 - 'Surfing the FSC' (J. Lezaun); 25 - Looking Back, Looking Forward in Stakeholder Engagement. Forward-looking perspectives from the day's discussions and presentations (B. Kallenbach-Herbert); 26 - Seeking Transparency, FSC Discussion Comments (FSC); 27 - 'Secrets of radiation', Journalist training course at STUK (L. Hietanen); 28 - STUK's course for Journalists, A participant's experience and evaluation (K. Koivisto); 29 - The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, the Media and the Civil society (S. Gas); 30 - The World's Nuclear Communication Network, 'Media Needs in an International Context' (M. Carey); 31 - Vision for the Reims conference, 14-17 December 2010 (NEA-RWMC); 32 - ICGR 2011 in Japan, 'National Commitment - Regional/Local Confidence' Reflecting 4. Planning Meeting (NUMO)