OPEN ACCESS
Sustainability aspects of nuclear power are analysed with regard to such environmental liabilities that are asso- ciated with decommissioning of nuclear facilities and with nuclear waste management. Sustainability is defined and evaluated based on information searches that also include energy from combustion of coal. It is concluded that the claims on sustainability put forward by different parties are inconsistent and that coherent methodolo- gies for evaluation are needed together with appropriately structured knowledge bases. Examples are presented from the perspective of the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority. It is found that nuclear power can qualify as sustainable only if the nuclear liability associated with protection of health and the environment - now and in the future – is appropriately managed. Sustainability awareness is analysed in a historic perspective, and it is found that it has been around for at least as long as agriculture, and that at least some of the shortcomings are actually modern inventions. Comprehensive perspectives are essential, since sustainability awareness may appear as trends. It is a historical fact that planning for decommissioning and estimation of associated costs are frequently treacherous exercises. However, costs must be relatively accurately estimated already at early stages so that adequate funds are available at the time when they are needed. Thus, the timing of the technical planning is often governed by the needs for financial planning. It is the duty of the present generation to assess what is adequate and to find responsible solutions. But the next generation should also be asked to carefully consider the perspective that they provide to us.
cost calculation, liability, nuclear, segregated fund, sustainability, younger stakeholders
[1] Radiation Protection Act. (In Swedish: Strålskyddslag). SFS 1988: 220.
[2] Act on Nuclear Activities. (In Swedish: Lag om kärnteknisk verksamhet). SFS 1984: 3.
[3] Nuclear Liability act. (In Swedish: Lag om finansiella åtgärder för hanteringen av restproduk- ter från kärnteknisk verksamhet). SFS 2006: 647.
[4] Norrby, S., A Regulatory authority’s needs for R&D to develop competence in assessing nu- clear waste management safety. Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXI, ed Ian G. McKinley, Charles McCombie (Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. Vol. 506, Warrendale, PA, 1997).
[5] Lindskog, S., Sjöblom, R. & Labor B., Sustainability of nuclear energy with regard to decom- missioning and waste management. Energy and sustainability III. WIT Transactions on Eco- logy and the Environment, 143, pp. 303–314, 2011. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2495/ESUS110261
[6] Lindskog, S. & Sjöblom, R., Implementation of the polluter pays principle - example of planning for decommissioning. Environmental economics and investment assessment III. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 131, pp. 27–38, 2010. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.2495/EEIA100031
[7] Labor, B. & Lindskog, S., Values held by young stakeholders on financial planning regarding liabilities for nuclear decommissioning. Environmental economics and investment assessment III. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 131, pp. 235–246, 2010. doi: http:// dx.doi.org/10.2495/EEIA100201
[8] Tyszkiewicz, B. & Labor, B., A Survey of Younger Citizens Values towards Decommissioning and Dismantling of Older Nuclear Facilities in a European Perspective. SKI* Report 2008: 52. June, 2008.
[9] Lindskog, S. & Sjöblom, R., Radiological, technical and financial planning for decommission- ing of small nuclear facilities in Sweden. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Environmental Remediation and Radioactive Waste Management, ICEM2009, October 11–15, Liverpool, UK, 2009.
[10] Lindskog, S., Cato, A. & Sjöblom, R., Estimations of costs for dismantling, decommissioning and associated waste management of nuclear facilities, and associated impact on decision processes, functioning of markets and the distribution of responsibilities between genera- tions. Environmental Economics II. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 108, pp. 97–103, 2008. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2495/EEIA080101
[11] Lindskog, S. & Sjöblom, R., Regulation evolution in Sweden with emphasis on financial as- pects of decommissioning. Decommissioning Challenges: An Industrial Reality?: Avignon, France, Sept. 28 to Oct. 2, 2008.
[12] Iversen, K., Salmenhaara, S., Backe, S., Cato, A., Lindskog, S., Callander, C., Efraimsson, H., Andersson, I. & R. Sjöblom., Cost calculations at early stages of nuclear facilities in the Nordic Countries. The 11th International Conference on Environmental Remediation and Radioactive Waste Management, Bruges (Brugge), Belgium, September 2–6, 2007.
[13] Cato, A., Lindskog, S. & Sjöblom, R., Financial Planning as a Tool for Efficient and Timely Decommissioning of Nuclear Research Facilities. American Nuclear Society. Decommission- ing, Decontamination and Reutilization. Capturing Decommissioning Lessons Learned, Chat- tanooga, Tennessee, USA, September 16–19, 2007.
[14] Sjöblom, R., Sjöö, C., Lindskog, S. & Cato, A., Early stage cost calculations for determina- tion and decommissioning of nuclear research facilities. The 10th International Conference on Environmental Remediation and Radioactive Waste Management, Glasgow, UK, September 4–8, 2005.
[15] Laraia, M. & McIntyre, P.J., responsible officers; Cato, A., Lindskog, S. & Sjöblom. R., et al contributors, Decommissioning of Research Reactors and Other Small Facilities by Making Optimal Use of Available Resources. IAEA Report Series 463, Vienna 2008.
[16] Brundtland, G., Chairman, Our Common Future (The Brundtland report). World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford University Press: Oxford, United Kingdom, 1987.
[17] See OECD. ‘Guiding Principles Concerning International Economic Aspects of Environmen- tal Policies’, Council Recommendation C(72)128, Paris, 26 May 1972.
[18] Deciding for the Future: Balancing Risks, Costs, and Benefits Fairly Across Generations. A Report by a Panel of the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) for the U.S. Department of Energy. June 1997.
[19] Decommissioning Funding: Ethics, Implementation, Uncertainties. Status Report 2006, OECD/NEA No. 5996, 2006.
[20] Charter of ethics. Four Pillars of Support for a Fast-Globalizing Nuclear Industry. World Nu- clear Association brochure.
[21] Nuclear Energy in a Sustainable Development Perspective. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 2000.
[22] Selecting Strategies for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. A Status Report. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 2006.
[23] Radioactive waste in perspective. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Report No 6350, 2010.
[24] Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants.
[25] Coal and sustainable development. A position paper by the Coal Industry Advisory Board pre- pared for the World Summit on Sustainable Development Johannesburg, OECD International Energy Agency. August 2002.
[26] Wickbom, U., The good power (In Swedish: “Den goda kraften”). GullersBild, Uppsala, 1995.
[27] Saaty, T.L., The Analytic Network Process, Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback. RWS Publications: Pittsburg, USA, 2001.
[28] Saaty, T.L. & Vargas L.G., Decision Making in Economic, Political, Social and Technological Environments with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. The Analytic Hierarchy Process Series, Vol VII, RWS Publications: Pittsburg, USA, 1994.
[29] Petersen, D., Analyzing Safety System Effectiveness, 3rd edn. Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, 1996.
[30] Chapman, N.A. & McKinley, I.G., The Geological Disposal of Nuclear Waste, John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, 1987.
[31] SKI (1996). SKI SITE-94 Deep Repository Performance Assessment Project. SKI* Report 96: 36 (2 volumes).
[32] Andersson, J., Dverstorp, B., Sjöblom, R. & Wingefors, S., The SKI repository performance assessment project SITE-94. International High Level Waste Management Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.A., 1–5 May, 1995.
[33] Andersson, J., ed, The Joint SKI/SKB Scenario Development Project. SKI* Technical Report 89: 14, Stockholm, December 1989. (This report is also published as SKB Technical Report 89–35).
[34] Stenhouse, M., Chapman, N. & Sumerlin, T., SITE 94. Scenario Development. FEP audit list prep- aration: Methodology and presentation. SKI* Technical Report 93: 27, Stockholm, April 1993.
[35] Chapman, N.S., Andersson, J., Robinson, P., Skagius, K., Wene, C-O., Wiborgh, M. & Wing- efors, S., Devising scenarios for future repository evolution: a rigorous methodology. Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc, 353. Materials Research Society, 1995.
[36] Sjöblom, R., Dverstorp, B. & Wingefors, S., Objectives and limitations of scientific studies with reference to the Swedish RD&D Programme 1992 for handling and final disposal of nuclear waste. Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc, 333, Pittsburgh, PA 1994.
[37] Strålsäkerhetsmyndighetens föreskrifter om slutförvaring av kärnämne och kärnavfall. SSMFS 2008: 21 (In Swedish. SSM:s regulations concerning safety in connection with the disposal of nuclear material and nuclear waste. Unofficial translation exists as SKIFS 2002: 1)
[38] Strålsäkerhetsmyndighetens föreskrifter om skydd av hälsa och miljön vid slutligt omhänder- tagande av använt kärnbränsle och kärnavfall. (In Swedish. Regulations on the protection of human health and the environment in connection with the final management of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. Unofficial translation exists as SSIFS 1998: 1 and SSI FS 2005: 5).
[39] Features, Events and Processes (FEPs) for Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Waste, An Inter- national Database. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 2000.
[40] Scenario Development, Methods and Practice; An Evaluation Based on the NEA Workshop on Scenario Development, Madrid, Spain, May 1999. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 2001.
[41] Cost Estimation for Decommissioning, An International Overview of Cost Elements, Estima- tion Practices and Reporting Requirements. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Report No 6831, 2010.
[42] Risk Perspective on Final Disposal of Nuclear Waste – Individual, Society and Communica- tion An in-Depth Report Supplementing KASAM’s Nuclear Waste State-of-the-Art Report 2007 (SOU 2007: 38). Swedish National Council for Nuclear Waste, Report 2007: 4e.
[43] Uranium 2009, Resources, Production and Demand. Jointly prepared by OECD, Nuclear En- ergy Agency and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). OECD Publishing: 2010.
[44] Spent Nuclear Fuel and Radioactive Waste. Parts I and II. AKA public investigation. (In Swed- ish) Department of Industry, SOU 1976: 30 and SOU 1976: 31. ISBN 91-38-02971-5 and ISBN 91-38-02972-3, respectively.
[45] Fjaestad, M., Why Did the Breeder Reactor Fail? - Swedish and International Nuclear Development in a Cold War Context. CESIS Electronic Working Paper Series, Paper No. 186. The Royal Institute of Technology. Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies (CESIS): Stockholm, August 2009.
[46] The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection.
ICRP Publication 103, 2007.
[47] Moberg, L., ed, The Chernobyl Fallout in Sweden. Results from a Research Programme on Environmental Radiology. The Swedish Radiation Protection Institute, 1991.
[48] Arrhenius, S., Kemien och det moderna livet. Hugo Gebers Förlag, Stockholm, 1919. German translation: Die Chemie und das moderne Leben. Autoris. deutsche Ausgabe von B. Finkel- stein. Lpz., Akadem. Vlgsanst., 1922. English translation: Chemistry in Modern Life. Trans- lated from the Swedish and revised by Clifford Shattuck Leonard, New York, D. van Nostrand Co., 1925.
[49] The Swedish Environmental Code. English translation. Ds 2000: 61. (In Swedish Miljöbalk, SFS 1998: 808).
[50] Accounting Act. (In Swedish: Bokföringslag). SFS 1999: 1078.
[51] Annual Reports Act. (In Swedish: Årsredovisningslag). SFS 1995: 1554.
[52] The Swedish Companies Act. (In Swedish: Aktiebolagslagen). SFS 2005: 551.
[53] International Financial Reporting Standards and International Accounting Standards (IFRS/ IAS). International Accounting Standards Board. 2008.
[54] The Swedish Penal Code. (In Swedish: Brottsbalk). SFS 1962: 700.
[55] Standard Guide for Estimating Monetary Costs and Liabilities for Environmental Matters. ASTM Standard E 2137 – 06, December 2006.
[56] Standard Guide for Disclosure of Environmental Liabilities. ASTM Standard E 2173 – 07, April 2007.
[57] Padilla, E., Intergenerational equity and sustainability. Ecological Economics, 41, pp. 69–83, 2002. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00026-5
*SKI = Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate, now Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM). Reports are available at www.ssm.se.