Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T05:58:53.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Science and Licensing: Let's Get off the Collision Course

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2011

R. A. Van Konynenburg
R. A. Van Konynenburg*
Affiliation:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, P.O. Box 808, L-352 Livermore, CA 94550
Get access

Abstract

The best possibility for gaining an understanding of the likely future behavior of a high level nuclear waste disposal system is use of the scientific method. However, the scientific approach has inherent limitations when it comes to making long-term predictions with confidence. This paper examines these limiting factors as well as the criteria for admissibility of scientific evidence in the legal arena, and concludes that the prospects are doubtful for successful licensing of a potential repository under the regulations that were binding until recently. Suggestions are made for remedying this situation.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 333: Symposium V – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XVII , 1993 , 183
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories-Technical Criteria,” Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60, U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash., D.C. (1993).Google Scholar
2 Environmental Protection Agency, “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for the Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes,” Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 191, U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash., D.C. (1992).Google Scholar
3 Descartes, R., Meditations on First Philosophy, translated by Donald Cress (Hackett Publishing Co., Indianapolis, 1979).Google Scholar
4 Hume, D., An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, edited by Hendel, Charles W. (Macmillan, New York, 1957).Google Scholar
5 Popper, K. R., The Logic of Scientific Discovery, (Hutchinson, London, 1959).Google Scholar
6 Kuhn, T. S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Second edition (University of Chicago, Chicago, 1970).Google Scholar
7 Godel, K., Collected Works. Vol. 1. edited by Feferman, S. et al. (Oxford University Press, New York, 1986).Google Scholar
8 Heisenberg, W., The Principles of the Quantum Theory (University of Chicago, Chicago, 1930).Google Scholar
9 Tolman, R. C., The Principles of Statistical Mechanics (Oxford University Press, London, 1938), p. 629.Google Scholar
10 Gleick, J., Chaos: Making a New Science (Penguin, New York, 1987).Google Scholar
11 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders,” Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2, U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash., D.C. (April 30, 1992).Google Scholar
12 Merrell Dow, Daubert v., U.S. Supreme Court case No. 92-102 (June 28,1993).Google Scholar
13 U.S. Congress, “Rules of Evidence,” Public Law 93-595, 88 STAT. 1926 (1976).Google Scholar
14 Frye, v. United States, 54 App. D.C. 46, 47, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (1923).Google Scholar
15 Malsch, M. G., Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Luncheon talk presented at Fourth Annual International Conference on High Level Radioactive Waste Management, Las Vegas, NV (1993).Google Scholar