IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v25y2022i5p632-647.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deep borehole disposal of nuclear waste: trust, cost and social acceptability

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Cotton

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Cotton, 2022. "Deep borehole disposal of nuclear waste: trust, cost and social acceptability," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(5), pages 632-647, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:25:y:2022:i:5:p:632-647
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2021.1957988
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2021.1957988
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2021.1957988?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:jriskr:v:25:y:2022:i:5:p:632-647. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    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.