Sustainability of nuclear waste engineering debate brings together differing perspectives

Every year EESG hosts a free event just before Christmas. On 2 December 2013 this took the form of a debate on the sustainability of the engineering solutions for nuclear waste management.

The debate format was chosen to enable different perspectives on this difficult subject to be presented together, while retaining the focus on the key requirement of sustainability to not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs, as defined by the UN Brundtland Commission. It was also intended to bring forward data and engineering arguments on sustainability, rather than personal positions in favour of or against the concept of nuclear power, and to secure an independent output by allowing an audience to vote.

The motion formulated by the Board of EESG was “This house believes that the engineering solutions in place for nuclear waste management effectively ensure that the ability of future generations to meet their needs will not be compromised”. It was proposed by Bruce McKirdy, Managing Director of the UK’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authorities  (NDA) Radioactive Waste Directorate, and opposed by Andris Bankovskis, Director at 4D Energy Limited.

In order to ensure a “professional” debate it was originally arranged to be chaired by an external debating society but on the night they were unable to attend so Daniel Kenning, current EESG chair, stood in at the last minute.  However, this did not detract from a very professional event – well done Daniel.

The debate began with an audience show of hands for and against the motion.  Both speakers then presented an initial statement lasting about 10 - 15 minutes.  Each was then given time to respond to the other’s assertions.  Finally a further audience show of hands was taken.

During their presentations both speakers included technical and political data to support their positions related specifically to the precise form of words in the motion. Interestingly, the opposition speaker took pains to point out that he was not anti-nuclear per se but rather could not support the statement as written.

The outcome of the debate in terms of the show of hands by the audience was a shift of about 14% away from “for the motion” and “abstain” to “against the motion”. Well done Bruce and Andris for presenting very well thought-out and professional arguments.