Abstract :
For both aspects of the disposal question discussed in the paper, the aim is not only to quantify the issues, but also to provide a perspective by giving appropriate comparisons. These comparisons come from other parts of the nuclear fuel cycle, from other areas of hazardous waste management or from other practices exposing individuals to risks. Emphasis is placed upon the linkage between initial considerations of the potential hazards of wastes and final conclusions concerning the actual consequences (e.g. doses or risks) to humans from repositories. In addressing the question, `How hazardous are radioactive wastes?ʹ, the paper distinguishes between subjective and objective hazards and then quantitatively considers hazard potential expressed as activity level and as toxicity. In the section on safety requirements on radioactive waste repositories, a range of topics is considered. These include identification of key safety issues, alternative measures of safety, setting appropriate safety levels, and defining compliance requirements. The following list of conclusions is drawn from the paper. Radioactive wastes are not unique in their total or specific radioactivity or their toxicity; neither do they present a unique problem with respect to their hazardous lifetimes. Radioactive wastes are unique in that the public perception of the hazard presented differs enormously from the actual hazard. Partly because of the preceding point, unusually stringent safety requirements have been established for radioactive waste disposal. The technical opinion within the waste management community is that these stringent requirements can, nevertheless, be satisfied. An important caveat, however, is that the key role of human judgement must be recognised when judging compliance with safety criteria for repositories. In a democratic system, we must accept goals which are set if we believe these to be achievable. This does not, however, excuse us from our responsibility to strive for a more equitable system of public protection, i.e. one which more responsibly allocates societyʹs resources to optimise benefits to all.
