IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i9p932-d629432.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Locating the Italian Radioactive Waste Repository: Issues and Perplexities Arisen from Open Data-Based Analyses about the TO-10 Site (NW Italy)

Author

Listed:
  • Enrico Borgogno-Mondino

    (Department of Agriculture, Forest and Food Sciences, University of Torino, 10124 Torino, Italy)

  • Andrea Borgia

    (EDRA, 00134 Roma, Italy)

  • Corrado Cigolini

    (Department of Earth Sciences, University of Torino, 10124 Torino, Italy)

Abstract

Recently, Italy has started the procedure for the selection of suitable sites for hosting the National Repository for Low-Medium Activity Radioactive Wastes. Sogin spa, a public company, taking into account the criteria of the ISPRA Technical Guide no. 29, solicited by the EU Directive 2011/70/Euratom, has presented the CNAPI (National Map of the Potentially Suitable Areas) which has become operative since 5 January 2021. Sixty-seven sites were identified in Italy as potentially suitable for hosting the repository. Some criticalities immediately appeared concerning the properness of the selection. An analysis was, therefore, achieved to explore part of the rationales underlying the adopted procedure. A paradigmatic site, namely the TO-10 one (NW Italy), was chosen for the analysis, which highlighted significant anomalies affecting both the procedure rationales and its results. Since the selection process majorly relies on geographical data, attention was particularly paid on the role of official data from open archives. With reference to the most updated and detailed ones, we demonstrated that the Sogin procedure suffers from several critical points. In particular, with reference to the TO-10 site, we found that it cannot be absolutely considered to be suitable for hosting the National Deposit. In fact, it proved to match several exclusion criteria included in the ISPRA Technical Guide n. 29. These include: the potentially high “seismic risk” due to a “seismic gap” and complex tectonics associated with uplift (up to 1–1.5 mm/y); a highly vulnerable and extremely superficial groundwater table; a high permeability (10 −2 –10 −3 m/s) of the cover sedimentary units; not proper buffer zones around local settlements. In spite of the local specificity of the analysis, results concerning procedure weaknesses are general. Consequently, we expect that they can be a stimulus for Sogin to more properly face the next steps of the selection procedure.

Suggested Citation

  • Enrico Borgogno-Mondino & Andrea Borgia & Corrado Cigolini, 2021. "Locating the Italian Radioactive Waste Repository: Issues and Perplexities Arisen from Open Data-Based Analyses about the TO-10 Site (NW Italy)," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-23, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:9:p:932-:d:629432
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/9/932/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/9/932/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Domenico Antonio De Luca & Manuela Lasagna & Laura Debernardi, 2020. "Hydrogeology of the western Po plain (Piedmont, NW Italy)," Journal of Maps, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 265-273, December.
    2. M. Gabriella Forno & Franco Gianotti, 2021. "The Turin fluvial terraces as evidence of the new Holocene setting of the Po River," Journal of Maps, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 75-85, July.
    3. Rob P. Rechard, 1999. "Historical Relationship Between Performance Assessment for Radioactive Waste Disposal and Other Types of Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(5), pages 763-807, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marc Lipsitch & Nicholas G. Evans & Owen Cotton‐Barratt, 2017. "Underprotection of Unpredictable Statistical Lives Compared to Predictable Ones," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 893-904, May.
    2. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    3. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    4. Ioannis Manikas & Balan Sundarakani & Foivos Anastasiadis & Beshir Ali, 2022. "A Framework for Food Security via Resilient Agri-Food Supply Chains: The Case of UAE," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-13, May.
    5. Terje Aven, 2020. "Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1889-1899, October.
    6. Max Boholm & Niklas Möller & Sven Ove Hansson, 2016. "The Concepts of Risk, Safety, and Security: Applications in Everyday Language," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 320-338, February.
    7. Sarah J. Cowell & Robyn Fairman & Ragnar E. Lofstedt, 2002. "Use of Risk Assessment and Life Cycle Assessment in Decision Making: A Common Policy Research Agenda," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 879-894, October.
    8. Peter Blokland & Genserik Reniers, 2019. "An Ontological and Semantic Foundation for Safety and Security Science," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-25, October.
    9. Kimberly M. Thompson, 2002. "Variability and Uncertainty Meet Risk Management and Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 647-654, June.
    10. Serkan Erbis & Zeynep Ok & Jacqueline A. Isaacs & James C. Benneyan & Sagar Kamarthi, 2016. "Review of Research Trends and Methods in Nano Environmental, Health, and Safety Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1644-1665, August.
    11. Antonio Nesticò & Shuquan He & Gianluigi De Mare & Renato Benintendi & Gabriella Maselli, 2018. "The ALARP Principle in the Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Acceptability of Investment Risk," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    12. Roger Flage & Terje Aven & Enrico Zio & Piero Baraldi, 2014. "Concerns, Challenges, and Directions of Development for the Issue of Representing Uncertainty in Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1196-1207, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:9:p:932-:d:629432. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.