Abstract

How does naming an object affect the way it is or could be managed? This paper examines and compares classification systems for radioactive waste applied by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and in France, Canada, and Belgium. I analyze how the relevant actors classify radioactive objects, and in so doing, prescribe their management. By comparing and describing four established classification systems, I highlight how the IAEA and national classification systems for radioactive waste systematically associate the “high-level radioactive waste” category with the “deep geological disposal” option. Building on Science and Technology Studies, I argue that creating categories of high-level radioactive waste does more than just describe different types of wastes: It also prescribes certain management options (e.g., deep geological disposal), thereby opening up certain options for action and closing down others. I underline how uncertainties remain about what to do with radioactive wastes in blurred, unstabilized categories that are classified and named differently by different actors. Examples of “blurred” categories include spent nuclear fuel from uranium oxide and spent nuclear fuel from mixed-oxide fuel. Should these categories be managed as a waste or as a resource? Should their common fate be the deep geological disposal? Revealing the power and limits of a top-down classification system to manage radioactive waste, I maintain that remaining uncertainties could reverse the dynamics of imagining a final long-term repository option for a given category. In the absence of stabilized categories, the deep geological disposal option becomes the primary mode of classifying objects as either waste or a resource. This analysis flips the conventional notion of high-level radioactive waste on its head: Instead of asking what management option should be preferred to deal with nuclear waste, the chosen disposal option has a decisive influence on what counts as radioactive waste in the first place. Nuclear engineers and top nuclear managers are invited to take a fresh look at the limits of their radioactive waste classification systems. They could potentially consider a new focus (the disposal option) and new allies (such as geological disposal designers, nongovernmental organizations, and civil society) to overcome them.

摘要

命名对象如何影响它的管理方式或可以管理的方式？本文检查并比较了国际原子能机构 (IAEA) 和法国、加拿大和比利时应用的放射性废物分类系统。我分析了相关参与者如何对放射性物体进行分类，并在此过程中规定了它们的管理方式。通过比较和描述四种已建立的分类系统，我强调了 IAEA 和国家放射性废物分类系统如何将“高放废物”类别与“深层地质处置”选项系统地联系起来。在科学技术研究的基础上，我认为创建高放废物类别不仅仅描述不同类型的废物：它还规定了某些管理选项（例如，深层地质处置），从而为行动打开了某些选择并关闭了其他选择。我要强调的是，如何处理由不同行为者分类和命名的模糊、不稳定类别的放射性废物仍然存在不确定性。“模糊”类别的例子包括来自氧化铀的乏核燃料和来自混合氧化物燃料的乏核燃料。这些类别应该作为废物还是作为资源进行管理？他们的共同命运是否应该是深部地质处置？揭示自上而下分类系统管理放射性废物的能力和局限性，我认为剩余的不确定性可能会逆转为给定类别设想最终长期处置库选项的动态。在没有稳定的类别的情况下，深层地质处置方案成为将物体分类为废物或资源的主要模式。这一分析颠覆了高放射性废物的传统概念：与其问处理核废物应该首选哪种管理方案，不如说选择的处置方案对放射性废物的重要性产生了决定性的影响。邀请核工程师和顶级核管理人员重新审视其放射性废物分类系统的局限性。他们可能会考虑新的重点（处置选项）和新的盟友（例如地质处置设计者、非政府组织和民间社会）来克服它们。与其询问处理核废物应该首选哪种管理方案，选择的处置方案首先对放射性废物的计数具有决定性影响。邀请核工程师和顶级核管理人员重新审视其放射性废物分类系统的局限性。他们可能会考虑新的重点（处置选项）和新的盟友（例如地质处置设计者、非政府组织和民间社会）来克服它们。与其询问处理核废物应该首选哪种管理方案，选择的处置方案首先对放射性废物的计数具有决定性影响。邀请核工程师和顶级核管理人员重新审视其放射性废物分类系统的局限性。他们可能会考虑一个新的焦点（处置选项）和新的盟友（例如地质处置设计者、非政府组织和民间社会）来克服它们。