P Bryant, J Hondros
The nuclear industry has had a good track record of progressively reducing occupational, public, and environmental exposures across the nuclear fuel cycle through the practical implementation of the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle. Worker and public doses remain low, and environmental impacts are being better understood, although the environmental impacts continue to be low. However, more recently, the industry is concerned that there is pressure to continue to reduce exposures despite there being no justifiable reason. This is often because of radiation being considered in isolation or prioritised above other potential hazards and leads to misallocation of resources (including physical, human, and financial). The broader concern is that this downward pressure re-enforces the perception of risk at very low exposure levels and biases decision-making about the benefits of the nuclear fuel cycle. With the ongoing concerns of climate change, many countries have made a commitment to embrace low-carbon energy systems. In support of this ambition, new nuclear power has been identified as a key part of the energy mix, highlighting the need to ensure that the decision-making mechanisms at low dose and exposure levels do not constrain the global needs and that there is a balanced treatment of the radiological risk of nuclear power, taking into account the wider non-radiological hazards, environmental considerations, and societal impacts. This article explores the radiological impacts to the environment across the nuclear fuel cycle from mining to the design, construction, operation and decommissioning of new nuclear plants, and finally the management of radioactive liabilities (including spent fuel and radioactive waste). The article provides real-life examples showing how the System of Radiological Protection is applied and how its over-application leads to unsustainable outcomes.