International Nuclear Societies Council - Ne

INTERNATIONAL NUCLEARSOCIETIES COUNCIL (INSC)

CURRENT ISSUESIN

NUCLEAR ENERGY

RADIOACTIVE WASTE

August 2002

ii

Copyright © 2002 by the International Nuclear Societies CouncilAll rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Published by the American Nuclear Society, Inc.555 North Kensington Avenue

La Grange Park, Illinois 60526 USA

iii

MEMBERS OF THE INTERNATIONALNUCLEAR SOCIETIES COUNCIL

American Nuclear Society (ANS)Asociación Argentina de Tecnologia Nuclear (AATN)

Associação Brasileira de Energia Nuclear (ABEN)Atomic Energy Society of Japan (AESJ)Australian Nuclear Association (ANA)

Canadian Nuclear Society (CNS)Egyptian Society of Nuclear Science and Applications (ESNSA)

European Nuclear Society (ENS)Austrian Nuclear SocietyBelarus Nuclear SocietyBelgian Nuclear Society

British Nuclear Energy SocietyBulgarian Nuclear SocietyCroatian Nuclear SocietyCzech Nuclear SocietyDanish Nuclear SocietyFinnish Nuclear Society

French Nuclear Energy SocietyGerman Nuclear Society

Hungarian Nuclear SocietyThe Institution of Nuclear Engineers

Israel Nuclear SocietyItalian Nuclear Association

Lithuanian Nuclear Energy AssociationNetherlands Nuclear Society

Nuclear Society of RussiaNuclear Society of Slovenia

Polish Nuclear SocietyRomanian Nuclear Energy Association

Slovak Nuclear SocietySpanish Nuclear SocietySwedish Nuclear Society

Swiss Nuclear SocietyUkrainian Nuclear SocietyYugoslav Nuclear Society

Indian Nuclear Society (INS)Israel Nuclear Society (INS)

Korean Nuclear Society (KNS)Latin American Section (LAS)

Nuclear Energy Society Taipei, China (NEST)Pakistan Nuclear Society

Sociedad Nuclear Mexicana (SNM)

iv

MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE

Chairman

John Mathieson, European Nuclear SocietyE-mail: [email protected]

MembersClarence J. Hardy, Australian Nuclear Association, Australia

E-mail: [email protected]

Alvaro Rodriguez Beceiro, European Nuclear SocietyE-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Osamu Tochiyama, Atomic Energy Society of JapanE-mail: [email protected]

Der-Yu Hsia, Nuclear Energy Society of TaiwanE-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Jose-Luis Delgado, Mexican Nuclear SocietyE-mail: [email protected]

v

CONTENTS

Foreword, viii

1. What Is Radioactive Waste Management? 12. Where Does Radioactive Waste Come From? 7

2.1 Introduction, 9

2.2 Types of Radioactive Waste, 10

2.3 How Much Is There? 14

2.4 How Is It Transported? 15

3. Principles and Objectives of Radioactive WasteManagement, 173.1 High-Level Principles, 19

3.2 Institutional Frameworks, 20

3.3 Financing Schemes, 23

3.4 Deep Geological Disposal, 25

3.4.1 Concept, 25

3.4.2 The Question of Time Scales, 28

3.4.3 Time Frames in Perspective, 29

3.4.4 Natural and Archaeological Analog Projects,30

3.4.5 The Survival of Repository Markers, 34

4. Waste Management Strategies: Options andEthics, 354.1 Introduction, 37

4.2 Involving the Public, 38

4.3 Spent-Fuel and HLW Management Strategies, 39

4.4 Partitioning and Transmutation, 41

4.5 Long-Term Surface Storage, 43

4.6 Phased Deep Geological Disposal, 44

4.7 Other Options, 47

vi

4.7.1 Deep Borehole Disposal, 47

4.7.2 Direct Injection, 47

4.7.3 Rock Melting, 47

4.7.4 Ice Sheet Disposal, 47

4.7.5 Sea Disposal, 48

4.7.6 Disposal into Space, 48

5. Current Worldwide Status of Disposal, 515.1 Introduction, 53

5.2 Storage Facilities, 54

5.3 Near-Surface Disposal, 54

5.4 Deep Disposal, 55

6. International Cooperation, 596.1 Technical, Scientific, and Infrastructure

Cooperation, 61

6.1.1 Introduction, 61

6.1.2 Underground Research Laboratories, 62

6.1.3 European Union Sixth R&D FrameworkProgram, 63

6.1.4 Policy and Infrastructure Cooperation, 63

6.1.5 The Work of IAEA, 65

6.1.6 OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 65

6.2 Multinational Radioactive Waste Facilities, 66

6.2.1 General, 66

6.2.2 Scenarios of Cooperation, 68

6.2.3 Public Involvement, 69

6.2.4 Conclusion, 69

7. International Instruments, 717.1 General, 73

7.1.1 The International Atomic Energy Agency, 74

7.1.2 International Commission on RadiologicalProtection, 74

7.1.3 European Union, 74

vii

7.2 Specific Examples of Treaties and InternationalLegislation, 75

7.2.1 European Union, 75

7.2.2 International Rules on Sea Disposal, 76

7.2.3 International Convention on the Safety ofSpent-Fuel and Radioactive WasteManagement, 78

7.2.4 International Treaties and Conventions onTransboundary Shipments of RadioactiveWaste, 79

References, 81

viii

FOREWORDThe purpose of this document is to provide top-levelinformation on the subject of radioactive wastemanagement disposal among the member societies of theInternational Nuclear Societies Council (INSC). The aimhere is to provide an overview on the subject from aninternational perspective and to provide access to Internetresources on the subject, including access to the relevantradwaste management organization in the countryconcerned.

We wish to acknowledge that much of the materialin this document has been provided by the nationalradwaste management organizations of many countries.Where appropriate, we have provided links to theirparticular Websites, where updated information isavailable.

Chang Kun LeeChairman, International Nuclear Societies Council

1. WHAT IS RADIOACTIVEWASTE MANAGEMENT?

1. WHAT IS RADIOACTIVEWASTE MANAGEMENT?

In introducing the subject of radioactive waste (radwaste)we must first agree on what is meant by the word waste.The organization that has considered this point in greatestdetail is the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),(see www.iaea.org). For the purposes of this document, wehave adopted their definition of radioactive waste1:

Any material that contains or is contaminated byradionuclides at concentrations or radioactivitylevels greater than the exempted quantitiesestablished by the competent authorities and forwhich no use is foreseen.

CURRENT ISSUES IN NUCLEAR ENERGY4

It is recognized that different countries may havedifferent interpretations; however, the important part of thedefinition is “for which no use is foreseen.” For some typesof waste this is self-evident (see Fig. 1 and Sec. 2).However, some countries, such as the United Kingdom,Japan, and France, for example, would regard spent fuelas a resource, as it is recycled, whereas Finland, theUnited States, Sweden, and others would regard it as awaste. The interpretation, therefore, can depend as muchon national policy as well as any scientific or technicaldescription.

Fig. 1. Example of radioactive waste.

We must also be clear what we mean by disposal.Again, we adopt the IAEA definition:

The emplacement of waste in an approved,specified facility …without the intention ofretrieval….

But again the reality of the definition depends as much ongovernment policy and public perception. In this case it isthe role of retrievability in the disposal concept. Somecountries require retrievability to be an option postdisposal.For example, even if spent fuel were regarded as a wastein this generation, future ones may regard it as a resource.

WHAT IS RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT? 5

Moreover, there is often the public perception that disposalis too final — raising the question, What if something goeswrong and we need to get it back? Radioactive wastemanagement is, therefore, about addressing both technicaland sociopolitical aspects.

The purpose of this publication is to look atradioactive waste management from an internationalperspective, to provide access to Internet resourcesrelating to the disposal of solid radioactive waste, and toconsider how different countries are applying top-levelprinciples of radwaste management.

We concentrate here on the disposal of solidradioactive waste, but many of the same principles apply todischarges of liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents aswell. We also realize that discharges from repositories maytake place over many thousands and tens of thousands ofyears. Radioactivity does not implicitly recognize nationalboundaries, nor on the time scales we are talking about forgeologic repositories, do national borders themselvesremain constant. It is, therefore, important that commonprinciples be applied around the world. Taking IAEAwording again, the main objective of radwastemanagement

… is to deal with radioactive waste in a manner thatprotects human health and the environmentnow and in the future without imposing undueburdens on future generations.

But this does not mean to say that radwaste disposalsolutions have to be found at any cost. We have aresponsibility also to the present generation, which has topay for disposal to provide an environmental solution thatis economical but is consistent with providing adequatesafety—an optimized solution. Further, the costimplications should be brought home directly to the peopleresponsible for creating the problem — the “polluter-pays”principle.

Radwaste management and disposal policies mustalso be consistent with higher-level policies aimed at


enhancing the environment—in particular, policies such assustainable development, often defined as developmentthat meets the needs of the present generation withoutcompromising the ability of future generations to meet theirown needs.

Sustainable Development

The concept of sustainable development was firstintroduced in 1987 in the United Nations report “OurCommon Future” (also called The Brundtland Report).This report was prepared by the World Commission onEnvironment and Development, which was chaired byGro Harlem Brundtland, then the prime minister ofNorway. The commission defined sustainabledevelopment as “meeting the needs of the presentwithout compromising the ability of future generations tomeet their own needs.” Many scientists believe that wemust adopt sustainable practices and policies in orderto maintain or better the current state of our planet.

The International Institute for Sustainable Developmenthas produced a series of World Wide Web documentsthat discuss the meaning and basic principles ofpractice behind sustainable development. Theseresources are available from www.iisd.org.

2. WHERE DOESRADIOACTIVE WASTE

COME FROM?

2. WHERE DOES RADIOACTIVEWASTE COME FROM?

2.1 IntroductionA general principle of radwaste management is that wasteshould not be created unnecessarily and that it should besafely treated and disposed of at an appropriate time andin an appropriate way. In undertaking radioactive wastemanagement, we must also ensure protection of theenvironment, workers, and members of the public.

Regardless of one’s views on nuclear issues,radioactive waste exists and is a consequence of a numberof activities:


1. nuclear power plants both during electricitygeneration and during dismantling(decommissioning) (Fig. 2)

2. nuclear propulsion, e.g., submarines and ice-breakers

3. nuclear weapons manufacture4. spent nuclear fuel reprocessing at COGEMA’s

facilities in France and British Nuclear Fuelsplc’s (BNFL) Sellafield plant in the UnitedKingdom

5. occurrence of contaminated waste fromincidents such as Chernobyl and poor historicalpractices at nuclear sites

6. the application of radioactivity in medicine andindustry

7. the enhancement of naturally occurringradionuclides (NORM) due to human activity,such as drilling muds in the oil industry.

Fig. 2. Decommissioning Vandellós I nuclear power plant in Spain (courtesy of ENRESA).

2.2 Types of Radioactive WasteRadioactive waste consists of a variety of materials havingdifferent physical and chemical properties containing

WHERE DOES RADIOACTIVE WASTE COME FROM? 11

different types of radioactivity (see Fig. 3). There are nointernational standard definitions of waste, although theIAEA has proposed five categories,2 and each nation tendsto have developed its own classification system. Inaddition, the European Commission (EC) has proposed aclassification system for application in the European Union(EU) (see www.europa.eu.int/comm/energy/nuclear).

The EC notes that the purpose of a classificationsystem is to improve communication and facilitateinformation management by providing a “good descriptivetool,” enabling easier communication with politicians andthe public.

The following is a general categorization of wastetypes:

1. Exempt waste: Radioactive waste that can besafely disposed of with ordinary refuse. Somecountries define this as very low level waste(VLLW) and provide separate disposal facilities(e.g., Andra).

2. Transition radioactive waste: A type ofradioactive waste (mainly from medical origin)that will decay within the period of temporarystorage and may then be suitable formanagement outside the regulatory controlsystem, subject to compliance with clearancelevels.

3. Low-level waste (LLW): Consisting of trash anddebris from routine operations anddecommissioning. It is primarily low-concentration beta/gamma contamination butmay include alpha-contaminated material. Itdoes not usually require special handling unlesscontaminated with alpha emitters.


a) Very low-level waste (courtesy of Andra). b) Typical low-level waste

(courtesy of BNFL).

c) Long-lived intermediate- level waste from reprocessing spent Magnox fuel in 500-litre drum (courtesy of BNFL).

d) TRU waste in 55-gallon drums for disposal at the DOE WIPP site (courtesy of DOE).

e) Vitrifed HLW production. The 1.35-m-high canister weighs 490 kg (courtesy of COGEMA).

f) Spent nuclear fuel storage underwater (courtesy of SKB).

Fig. 3. Examples of radioactive wastes.


4. Low- and intermediate-level waste (LILW) (EC):In LILW the concentration of radionuclides issuch that generation of thermal power during itsdisposal is sufficiently low. These acceptablethermal power values are site specific followingsafety assessments.

5. Intermediate (medium)-level waste (ILW):Wastes containing higher concentrations ofbeta/gamma contamination and sometimesalpha emitters. There is little heat output fromthis category of waste, but it usually requiresremote handling. Such waste originates fromroutine power station maintenance operations,e.g., used ion-exchange resins and filtercartridges. Some countries, notably the UnitedStates, Canada, and Japan, do not use the ILWclassification category; however, some types ofLLW, such as “greater than Class C” in theUnited States, would equate to ILW elsewhere.These examples can be further classified asshort lived (usually meaning radionuclides witha half-life of less than 30 years) and long lived.Fuel reprocessing wastes, such as the canningmaterials, also are classed as ILW but containlong-lived species of radionuclides, whichrequire deep disposal.

6. Transuranic waste: Some countries choose tocategorize alpha-bearing waste separately. Forexample, in the United States, transuranicwaste (TRU) is defined as… waste containing more than 100 nanocuriesof alpha-emitting transuranic isotopes, with halflives greater than twenty years, per gram ofwaste … .

7. High-level waste (HLW): This is waste withsuch a concentration of radionuclides thatgeneration of thermal power has to beconsidered during its storage and disposal (the


heat generation level is site specific and arisesmainly from treatment/conditioning of spentnuclear fuel).Depending on the national strategy adopted forthe back end of the fuel cycle, HLW maycomprise either spent fuel or the highly activeraffinate resulting from the first stage of fuelreprocessing. This raffinate is often immobilizedin a suitable matrix for eventual disposal—glassand synroc are two examples of such a matrix.It contains high concentrations of beta/gamma-emitting fission products and alpha-emittingactinides. HLW is de facto a long-lived wastetype and requires remote handling due to theradiation levels. In some countries, thedefinition of HLW encompasses spent fuel.

CommentRecognizing that the classification of waste is not intendedto prescribe disposal routes, its misuse can createdifficulties in optimizing the disposal of wastes that lie closeto the category boundaries. For example, some kinds ofspent fuel, such as fuel fragments or low-irradiation fuel,could be disposed of alongside ILW, without imposingsignificant additional risk.

Accordingly, safety assessments determine theacceptability of disposal by any particular route. It isimportant, therefore, to recognize that while classificationsare a useful shorthand, they will not in themselvesconstrain the choice of disposal routes.

2.3 How Much Is There?In the Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD) countries, approximately 300 milliontonnes of toxic waste is produced each year. By way ofcomparison, a 1000-MWe coal plant producesapproximately 300 000 tonnes of ash alone per year,containing among other things radioactive material and


heavy metals that end up in landfill sites and in theatmosphere.

The generation of electricity from a typical 1000-MWe nuclear power station, which would supply the needsof a city the size of Amsterdam, produces approximately300 m3 of LILW per year and some 30 tonnes of HLW. Intotal, each year, nuclear power generation facilities world-wide produce about 200 000 m3 of LILW and 10 000 m3 ofHLW (including spent fuel designated as waste).

The IAEA compiles figures from around the worldevery few years and produces reports that are availablethrough their Website. The IAEA admits that to produceglobal figures for waste amounts is very difficult—notbecause it is unrecorded but because different countrieshave different classification schemes. The IAEA’s WasteManagement Database contains information on nationalradioactive waste inventories and is available on-line,following registration, at http://www-newmdb.iaea.org/.

2.4 How Is It Transported?Transport of radioactive waste is necessary when thewaste is produced at a site other than the one where it isconditioned, stored, or disposed of. Radioactive materialsare routinely and safely transported in many countries byroad, rail, sea (Fig. 4), and air.

The transport regulations in most countries areconsistent with the IAEA Regulations on the SafeTransport of Radioactive Materials. These regulationsstipulate the type of packaging that must be used, itslabeling, and permitted modes of transport. Before beingaccepted, transport packages are type tested and must beable to withstand drop tests from various heights (Fig. 5),fire tests, leak tests, immersion tests, etc., withoutreleasing their radioactive contents. These requirementsmust prevent, even in case of a severe accident, therelease of radioactive material that would give rise tounacceptable doses to individuals.


Fig. 4. The MS Sigyn carries radwaste between Swedish nuclearsites on the Baltic coast (courtesy of SKB).

Fig. 5. Spent-fuel transportation cask undergoes a drop test(courtesy of GNS).

There are a number of international treaties andconventions on transboundary shipments of radioactivewaste, and these are referred to later in Sec. 7.

3. PRINCIPLES ANDOBJECTIVES OF

RADIOACTIVE WASTEMANAGEMENT

3. Principles and Objectives ofRadioactive Waste

Management

3.1 High-Level PrinciplesThe primary objective of radwaste management is toprotect humans and their environment, both now and in thefuture, from potential hazards arising from such wastes.Safe radwaste management involves the application oftechnology and resources in a regulated manner so thatthe public, workers, and the environment are protected inaccordance with accepted national and internationalstandards.


Many countries have signed and ratified the JointConvention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management andon the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management (seewww.iaea.org/ns/rasanet/programme/wastesafety/Safety_Conventions).

In summary, this document states that radioactivewaste shall be managed in ways that

1. ensure that criticality and removal of residualheat generated during spent-fuel andradioactive waste management are adequatelyaddressed

2. ensure that the generation of radioactive wasteis kept to the minimum practicable

3. take into account interdependencies among thedifferent steps in radioactive wastemanagement

4. provide for effective protection of individuals,society, and the environment by applying at thenational level suitable protective methods asapproved by the regulatory body within theframework of its national legislation which hasdue regard to internationally endorsed criteriaand standards

5. take into account the biological, chemical, andother hazards that may be associated withradioactive waste management

6. strive to avoid actions that impose reasonablypredictable impacts on future generationsgreater than those permitted for the currentgeneration

7. seek to avoid imposing undue burdens onfuture generations.

3.2 Institutional FrameworksThe IAEA provides guidance3 relating to the establishmentof appropriate radioactive waste management structureswithin a country, highlighting the importance of having well-

WASTE MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES 21

defined responsibilities. In particular, attention is paid tothe relationships between

1. the state, responsible for policy2. the regulator, responsible for regulation and

licensing3. waste production by industry and the like4. waste disposal by a separate waste

management organization.

Around the world, many examples exist of thesearrangements. However, precise arrangements differ indetail in that there are examples where the wasteproducers undertake some aspects of disposal. Forexample, BNFL and United Kingdom Atomic EnergyAuthority (UKAEA) (UK waste producers) haveresponsibility to dispose of LLW at Drigg and Dounreay,respectively. In Finland, the operators of the two nuclearpower station sites manage LLW and short-lived ILWdisposal facilities. Differences are also apparent,particularly with respect to responsibilities for treatmentand conditioning, transport, and storage.

It should be emphasized that precise arrangementsnever stray far from the IAEA principles; however, they dodiffer in their detail to reflect national differences ineconomic, social, political, legal, institutional, andgeographic structures.

Table 1 provides the names of the radioactivewaste management organizations and links to theirWebsites and those of associated organizations.

Table 1.Radioactive Waste Management Organizations in SomeCountries

Country Agency Useful WebsitesAustralia Department of

Education, Science,and Training (DEST)

http://www.dest.gov.au/radwaste/


Table 1. (cont’d.)Radioactive Waste Management Organizations in SomeCountries

Country Agency Useful WebsitesBelgium ONDRAF/NIRAS www.nirond.be

http://hades.sckcen.beCanada None as yet, but law

passed in 2001enables one to becreated

www.aecl.cawww.nrcan.gc.cahttp://www.opg.com/ops/N_waste_man.asp

CzechRepublic

RAWRA www.surao.ca/english/index-en.html

Germany BfS (subcontracted toDBE)

www.bfs.dewww.dbe.de

Finland Posiva Oy www.posiva.fiwww.tvo.fiwww.fortum.comwww.stuk.fi

France ANDRA www.andra.frwww.cogema.frwww.cea.fr

Korea None as yet www.kaeri.re.krHungary PURAM www.rhk.huItaly ENEA undertakes

some functionshttp://www.casaccia.enea.it/taskforce/

Netherlands COVRA http://www.vrom.nl.international/http://www.nrg-nl.com/

Japan NUMO www.numo.org.jpwww.jnfl.co.jpwww.miti.go.jp

Russia RADONMINATOM

www.radon.ruwww.minatom.ru

Slovenia Agency RAO www.sigov.si/arao/aarao.htmlSpain ENRESA www.enresa.esSweden SKB www.skb.seSwitzerland NAGRA www.nagra.chTaiwan Fuel cycle and

materialsadministration(FCMA) is theregulator, and thereare plans forestablishing a wastemanagementorganization

www.fcma.aec.gov.twwww.taipower.co.tw


Table 1. (cont’d.)Radioactive Waste Management Organizations in SomeCountries

Country Agency Useful Websites

UnitedKingdom

UK Nirex Ltd www.nirex.co.ukwww.bnfl.co.ukwww.ukaea.org

United States U.S. Department ofEnergy—Office ofCivilan RadioactiveWaste Managementfor civilian HLWDOE EnvironmentalManagement for TRUState compacts forLLW

www.rw.doe.govwww.em.doe.gov/dnfsbrpt/www.wipp.carlsbad.nm.us/www.envirocareutah.com/www.ymp.gov/

3.3 Financing SchemesThe polluter-pays principle is intended to ensure that (any)waste producer makes proper provision for dealing safelywith its waste and that costs are passed on to those whobenefit from its production. Generic solutions for financingradioactive waste disposal address the issues of who paysand how they should pay. In brief, the options are

1. waste producers, directly through a tariffmechanism to the waste disposal organization

2. electricity producers, through payments into afund from levies on electricity generation andthen to the waste disposal organization

3. government or third parties through subsidies tothe waste disposal organization.

In addition, there is a general international consensus thatall liabilities (decommissioning and waste disposal) shouldbe identified, reported, and reviewed periodically and thatthere should be mechanisms to ensure that funds areavailable to meet these liabilities when they arise.


The fundamental features of radioactive wastemanagement are extremely challenging from an economicperspective. Radwaste management is not a conventionalindustry, where demand and supply can be easilymatched; there are confounding factors such as the longtime scales involved. Radwaste management and, inparticular, the design, construction, and operation of anunderground repository are lengthy processes, typicallycontinuing many tens of years after waste has actuallybeen generated.

The long time scales associated with the design,construction, and operation of a radwaste repository areparticularly problematic in the context of changes in thestate of technological knowledge. Once financial capitalhas been spent in the pursuit of a particular technicalsolution, it may be difficult to take advantage of any otheroptions that (for reasons of technological advancement)may present themselves. Capital expended quicklybecomes sunk and irretrievable. The financing mechanism,therefore, needs to be robust in the face of irreversibilityand technological change.

The principle of polluter pays stipulates that thecosts of dealing with waste should, as far as possible,burden those who benefited from its production. In thecase of radwaste management, this implies that chargesshould be levied on those responsible for waste generation(and where applicable, their customers). Waste is typicallyproduced by a number of disparate sources (electricity,fuel cycle, research, etc.), and the funding mechanismneeds to take this into account.

In most cases, operation of the financing schemeinvolves the buildup of a fund to cover future wastemanagement costs; this is no more than a special form ofpension scheme. The funds are sometimes segregatedand managed separately, either directly by the wasteproducer, the waste management organization, or thegovernment, or by independent fund managers.


For more discussion on this subject the reader isreferred to Ref. 4. The EC has also carried out acomparative study of financing schemes around the world(seehttp://www.europa.eu.int/comm/energy/nuclear/synopses.htm#18185).

3.4 Deep Geological Disposal3.4.1 ConceptDeep disposal in stable geological formations is a meansof safe containment of long-lived radioactive materials(long-lived ILW, HLW, and spent nuclear fuel) for manythousands of years. Deep disposal ensures that any riskfrom exposure due to accidental intervention or naturaldisturbance is reduced to a very low level. The main routeby which radionuclides in the waste could return to thebiosphere is movement in groundwater that may eventuallyreach the surface to enter the environment.

Prior to the construction and operation of arepository, all countries would require the proponent,usually the waste management organization, to go througha licensing process with the regulators. This process isaimed inter alia at testing the operational (which mayinclude the transport arrangements) and postclosure safetyaspects of the concept to demonstrate that the proposal isbased on sound scientific knowledge. Such an exercise isoften referred to as performance assessment, and theprocess may involve several iterations as knowledge abouta site increases through more detailed sitecharacterization.

Repository postclosure performance assessmentsattempt to evaluate the radiological safety of a repositoryafter it has been closed and sealed. Different regulators indifferent countries have their own requirements, but inessence they all require safety performance to beassessed against levels of radiation dose or risk toindividuals in the distant future. For near-surfacerepositories this may be about 300 years (i.e., ten half-lives


of short-lived waste) or 10 000 years or longer for long-lived wastes.

All repository concepts are based on theunderstanding that some radioactivity will be released fromthe facility at some time in the future and find its way backto human environment (see Fig. 6).

Fig. 6. Deep geological disposal concept.

The role of a radioactive waste management organizationis to ensure that these very long time scales areconsidered when radioactive waste is conditioned andpackaged before being put into interim storage or sent forfinal disposal. This time-scale issue has particularresonance in relation to

1. the longevity of the engineered (manufactured)barriers that are intended to keep theradionuclides within the confines of arepository—mostly steel and cement for an ILWrepository, or copper and clay for a spent-fuelrepository


2. the rate of migration of radionuclides throughthe rocks surrounding a repository (primarilythrough transport in groundwater, see Fig. 6)

3. the way that one assesses safety for humangenerations living in the distant future.

A useful and frequently employed tool for addressing thefirst two of these questions is the use of analog data. In thecase of the engineered barriers, evidence can be obtainedfrom so-called anthropogenic analogs: studies of thesurvival, over thousands of years, of objects made byhumans from metal or concrete and the environmentalconditions that allow this survival. For the second question,that of migration of radionuclides through the surroundingrocks, natural analogs may be useful. (See Sec. 3.4.4.)

The third issue, the way that, one judges safety forgenerations living in the distant future, is usuallyaddressed by examining outcomes for a range of possibleclimate states. Uncertainties, with respect to human habitsfor instance, may be addressed by making assumptionsthat err on the side of safety, that the exposed populationonly eats produce from contaminated soil, for example.Work by the IAEA and guidance from the InternationalCommission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has donemuch to build an international consensus in this area.

Mathematical models are utilized to calculate theresultant risk of death or radiation dose that may arise from

1. the groundwater pathway, in which water willslowly move through the repository and maycarry away dissolved radionuclides

2. the gas pathway, in which there could be therelease of gases that find their way back to thebiosphere

3. the human intrusion pathway, in which somefuture geologic worker may drill into a repositoryor the groundwater plume and becomeexposed.


A typical output of a mathematical model is shown in Fig.7. Note that the peak risk (of death) or dose can be verymany years into the future for a deep repository.

3.4.2 The Question of Time ScalesThe very long half-lives of some of the radionuclidespresent in radioactive waste ensure that some of the wastewill remain potentially hazardous, certainly for thousands,and possibly for millions, of years. There is nothing so veryunusual about this. After all, conventionally toxic materials,such as heavy metals, will remain toxic forever—in effect,they have infinite half-lives. Even so, the question of howwaste can be managed over thousands of years raisesdifficult issues. This is primarily because such time scalesare well beyond individual human, or even cultural,experience.

A few scientific disciplines, such as geology,archaeology, evolutionary biology and cosmology,successfully consider and deal with very long time scales.So, in geologic terms, recent equates to the past 10 000years, a period in which no major global changes in climate

Fig. 7. Typical output for a risk assessment for a deep repository (note log scale) (courtesy of Nirex).


or fauna have occurred. It is primarily from geology thatpossible long-term precedents appear.

3.4.3 Time Frames in Perspective

Typically, performance assessments address time scalesof up to a million years. It is recognized, of course, that asthe time frame extends, the calculational uncertaintyincreases. To express this in a more structured way,calculations may be presented in a series of time frames.These show how different emphases can be placed ondifferent measures of performance in different time frames.In particular, in the more distant time frames, it isappropriate to place increasing reliance on measures thatinvolve comparisons with naturally occurring radioactivity.Table 2 shows time frames that are considered in someperformance assessment work; the relevant radionuclidesare shown in column 4.

Table 2.Time Frames in Performance Assessment

TimeFrame

Looking Back Looking Forward Radionuclides(half-life)

0 to100years

A few generations ofa family

Institutional control ofa repository isenvisaged for most ofthis period;greenhouse-gaseffect may affect theclimate

3 H (12 years)

90 Sr (29 years)

137 Cs (30 years)

100 to10 000years

Upper time limit iscomparable to theperiod since theMiddle Stone Age,marking the start oforganized societyrepresented by theNew Stone Age

Institutional controlsassumed to havelapsed during thisperiod

The current temperateinterglacial conditionsexpected to persist formost of this timeframe

14 C (5700 years)


Table 2. (cont’d.)Time Frames in Performance Assessment

TimeFrame Looking Back Looking Forward Radionuclides

(half-life)

10 000to onemillionyears

Durationcomparable to theperiod from theappearance ofearly humans tothe emergence ofHomo Sapiens

Glacial/interglacialcycling expected. Thesea level would fall byup to 140 m duringglacial periods, andglacial or periglacialconditions wouldoccur in Britain formuch of the time

Major tectonicchanges not expected

239 Pu (24 000 years)

99Tc (200 000 years)

36 Cl (300 000 years)

Beyondonemillionyears

First isolatedappearances ofearly humans inEurope

Major tectonicchanges could occur

129 I (16 million years)

238U (4500 million years)

3.4.4 Natural and Archaeological Analog ProjectsRepository concepts rely on a combination of natural andengineered barriers to provide the required level of long-term safety. Natural analogs5 are occurrences of highconcentrations of natural radioactivity or geologicalenvironments similar to those expected in repositories andcan make an important input into understanding ofrepository performance. In this context, both natural andarchaeological (manufactured) analogs are used to studythe long-term performance of natural and engineeredsystems, respectively.

For example, the Maqarin site in Jordan containshyperalkaline material waste—typical of the situationexpected in a deep repository; a project there started in1990 and now involves NAGRA (Switzerland), OntarioHydro (Canada), Nirex (United Kingdom), SKB (Sweden),and the UK Environment Agency. El Berrocal, a uraniummine in Spain, was studied as a natural analog of uraniummigration processes in fractured crystalline rock; aCEC/ENRESA/Nirex cofunded project ran from 1991 to1995. The Alligator Rivers natural analog project was an


investigation of uranium deposits in the Northern Territoryof Australia, located primarily at the Koongarra deposit;conditions there make ideal for radionuclide migrationstudies.

Archaeological analog studies are designed tostudy the many materials used in radioactive wastemanagement, including metals, cement, bitumen, glass,and clay. Examples are as follows:

1. Copper: A bronze (96% copper) cannon fromthe warship Kronan, which sank in the Baltic in1676, was found in the clay sediments of thesea bottom. The corrosion over the 300-yearperiod was only about 50 µm. Theenvironmental conditions were similar to thoseexpected in the Swedish KBS3 disposalconcept, which envisages the encapsulation ofspent fuel in a 0.1-m-thick copper canistersurrounded by bentonite clay.

2. Iron: Many iron artifacts do not survive long-term burial in soil. However, a huge intact hoardof Roman iron nails found in Scotland hadsome of the nails in remarkably good state ofpreservation. ENRESA is using chemicalanalysis techniques to study the corrosion ofsuch artifacts.

3. Cements: The Romans used cement instructures such as harbors, thermal baths (seeFig. 8), and the dome of the Pantheon in Rome.Studies on ancient cements, concretes, andmortars have found that their alkalinecomponents are stable over a long time,implying that chemical containment ofradionuclides in a repository would also belong-lived.


Fig. 8. Typical lime mortar and stone construction from theRoman Fort and Bath House at Glannoventa(Ravenglass, Cumbria, United Kingdom)(courtesy of Nirex).

4. Bitumen: The earliest recorded use of bitumengoes back more than 5000 years and has beenused as a waterproof mortar for stabilizingnatural and artificial riverbank walls. The goodpreservation of ancient inscriptions andornamentation on bitumen attests to its stabilityon a millennial time scale.

5. Glass is a naturally occurring material. A well-known example is volcanic obsidian, used asearly as the Neolithic period as an alternative toflint. Obsidian is common in the 50- to 55-million-year-old tertiary volcanic rocks ofwestern Scotland. The existence of these andsimilar rocks suggests that natural glasses canresist devitrification for millions of years.

6. Clay: Some disposal concepts have plastic claysurrounding the waste containers, e.g.,bentonite clay or mudrock. Perhaps the bestknown natural analog for clay forming a barrierto migration of radionuclides is at Cigar Lake in


the Canadian Shield, where a high-gradeuranium ore body formed some 1300 millionyears ago. This ore body is surrounded by aclay-rich envelope 10 to 50 m thick that hashelped to keep the ore body intact over much ofthis time (see Fig. 9).

Fig. 9. Cigar Lake, Saskatchewan, Canada.


3.4.5 The Survival of Repository MarkersWork in the United States since the early 1980s has drawnon lessons from the existence of ancient monuments suchas Stonehenge and the pyramids of Egypt to designrepository warning markers for future generations. For theYucca Mountain site in Nevada, an array of polishedgranite monoliths, similar to those at Stonehenge, definingthe boundary of the repository has been proposed. Inaddition, thousands of small warning tablets would berandomly buried throughout a wide area. While some ofthese materials may be durable, there is a humantendency to reuse metals, and the history of the Aveburystone circle in the United Kingdom, where monoliths weresystematically broken to be used in buildings, suggeststhat there may also be limits to the survivability of stonemonoliths.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyregulations require that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant(WIPP) waste disposal site use markers and other passiveinstitutional controls (PICs) to indicate the repositorylocations. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) hasidentified PICs that are expected to last during theregulatory time frame of 10 000 years. They include

1. a large earthen berm (hill) containing configuredobjects designed to reflect radar

2. granite monuments, 25 feet high3. a 40- x 32- x 15-foot-high surface structure

engraved with many messages4. archives: records will be stored, controlled, and

maintained at many U.S. locations around theworld.

4. WASTE MANAGEMENTSTRATEGIES: OPTIONS AND

ETHICS

4. WASTE MANAGEMENTSTRATEGIES: OPTIONS AND

ETHICS

4.1 IntroductionOver the decades since the start of major radwasteresearch, a variety of disposal and other wastemanagement options have been suggested. This sectionbriefly describes some of the ones that have beenproposed.

Interest in the various options focuses on twoethical concerns: intergenerational equity (fairness andequity considerations between generations) andintragenerational equity (fairness and equity considerationswithin contemporary generations). The Nuclear EnergyAgency (NEA) Radioactive Waste Management Committee


in 1995 set out in its Opinion on the Environmental andEthical Basis of Geological Disposal, a set of principles tobe used as a guide in making ethical choices about wastemanagement strategy (see www.nea.fr):

1. The liabilities of waste management should beconsidered when undertaking new projects.

2. Those who generate the wastes should takeresponsibility and provide the resources for themanagement of these materials in a way thatwill not impose undue burdens on futuregenerations.

3. Wastes should be managed in a way thatsecures an acceptable level of protection forhuman health and the environment and affordsto future generations at least the level of safetythat is acceptable today; there seems to be noethical basis for discounting future health andenvironmental damage risks.

4. A waste management strategy should not bebased on a presumption of a stable societalstructure for the indefinite future, nor oftechnological advance; rather it should aim atbequeathing a passively safe situation thatplaces no reliance on active institutionalcontrols.

The principle of intergenerational equity requires that weshow care for future generations by not placing them underany undue burden to care for our waste. In addition, thegeneration deriving the benefit should pay its costs, andthe current generation should not limit the options availableto future generations.

4.2 Involving the PublicThe public’s perception of the future of the nuclear industryis often related to its (negative) perception of radioactivewaste management. The level of concern increases whenthe siting of radioactive waste management facilities is

WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 39

being considered, particularly deep undergroundrepositories. There is often little awareness of the routinetechnologies applied to most stages of wastemanagement, including disposal.

More and more countries are undertaking thedevelopment of disposal facilities (and other large andcontroversial projects) through a process of formal andinformal consultation, communication, and localinvolvement. These approaches demonstrate increasedopenness and transparency in decision-making and areoften underpinned by legislation (e.g., environmentalimpact assessment legislation).

There is also a general consensus that the publicshould be involved principally at the local level in decisionson siting radwaste management facilities. Suchinvolvement may result in the original proposals beingmodified or even abandoned.

Within the EU there are several directives thatrequire involvement of the public in decisions onradioactive waste management and other nuclear facilities.These are based both on European specific and otherinternational requirements. References to these are givenin Sec. 7.

4.3 Spent-Fuel and HLW Management StrategiesReprocessing refers to the practice of extracting plutonium,uranium, and undesirable fission products and actinides(see Fig. 10). The plutonium is available for reuse as fuel.The uranium may be recycled as fuel or may be used forother applications, but in many cases it is considered to bea waste product because it is depleted in fissionableuranium-235. The fission products and remainingactinides, which constitute only a small fraction of usedfuel, are incorporated into a suitable matrix such as glassfor eventual disposal.


Although reprocessing changes the characteristicsof the waste form, reprocessing used fuel does notalleviate the need for geological disposal.

Decisions on whether to reprocess fuel aredetermined by the need to balance considerations such asthe cost of the different fuel cycle management options,the availability of indigenous fuel resources, the desire ofmaximizing the energy extracted from uranium resources,the capacity of interim storage for used fuel, and theenergy value of recovered uranium and plutonium asfeedstock for the manufacture of new fuel. Therefore, thequestion of whether or not to reprocess used fuel frompower reactors is thus not fundamentally a wastemanagement issue.

Fig. 10. Spent-fuel reprocessing schematic(courtesy of COGEMA).

Long-term surface storage, reprocessing, and partitioningand transmutation are potential components in an overallwaste management strategy eventually leading todisposal. From this picture, different waste managementstrategies for spent fuel and HLW can be envisaged,namely,


1. extended or indefinite storage2. direct disposal (interim storage followed by

deep geological disposal with or without wasteretrievability)

3. conventional closed cycle (interim storagefollowed by reprocessing and deep geologicaldisposal with or without waste retrievability);after spent-fuel reprocessing, a geologicaldisposal decision could be deferred leading tothe extended or indefinite storage of theresulting high-level liquid wastes or theconditioned vitrified HLWs

4. advanced closed cycle (interim storage followedby reprocessing, partitioning, and transmutationof minor actinides and long-lived fissionproducts, and deep geological disposal with orwithout waste retrievability). After wastetransmutation, a geological disposal decisioncould be deferred, leading to the extended orindefinite storage of the resulting partitioningand transmutation residues.

4.4 Partitioning and TransmutationThe goal of partitioning and transmutation (P&T) would beto reduce (ideally, to eliminate) the quantity of long-livedradionuclides requiring long-term management bychanging (transmuting) long-lived radionuclides into short-lived radionuclides or stable elements. Transmutation isachieved through the use of nuclear reactions, namely,neutron capture leading to fission (for the actinides) orradioactive decay (for fission products). This would bedone by bombarding the target radionuclide with neutronsin a nuclear reactor or by a particle accelerator. The targetradionuclide would need to have had excluded from it anyundesirable nuclides: for example, stable elements thatmight themselves be transmuted into long-livedradionuclides. This would be achieved by chemical


separation, or partitioning, of the target radionuclide priorto irradiation.

The P&T schemes bring together fuel-reprocessingplants, radionuclide separation plants, and various nuclearreactor types to produce nuclear energy while minimizingthe creation of long-lived waste. Research would berequired to realize these schemes, which suggests thatP&T is a technology that will take decades to come tofruition.

Different developments in reprocessing along withadvances in reactor design and robotics as well aschanges in the regulatory and public environments haverecently led to renewed interest in transmutation,particularly in France, Japan, and Russia. However, expertgroups of the IAEA and OECD/NEA have emphasized thatthe current and proposed P&T programs are long-termprojects that do not affect the present fuel cycle strategyand that the concept cannot avoid the need for eventualdeep geological disposal.

If nuclear fuel is to be reprocessed for recycling andif transmutation of some long-lived radionuclides can beeffectively incorporated in the fuel cycle, then P&T mayeventually be worthwhile. However, the need for geologicaldisposal would still remain for other long-lived nuclides.

Even if the level of risks posed by geologicaldisposal is considered very low, there is considerableinterest in investigating whether a further reduction of thefuture potential hazard of the waste can be achieved byP&T and at what cost this can be accomplished. Note thatthe exposure risk in the present or in the near future couldappreciably increase due to the complexity of the fuelcycle. The strength of a P&T process would be that itwould drastically reduce the hypothetically possible futureconsequences of unforeseen events. On the other hand, abroad commitment to the development of P&T processeswill obscure the fact that the future risks posed by a well-executed deep repository are already deemed to be verysmall. In addition, the possible deployment of P&T


processes far into the future should not be used as anexcuse to postpone development of geological disposal,which will be needed anyway.

There might be potential for widespread use of P&Ttechnology if there is a new upswing in nuclear powerdevelopment and construction programs in leadingindustrial countries.

4.5 Long-Term Surface StorageLong-term surface storage would allow the waste to remaineasily monitorable and retrievable, thereby giving futuregenerations greater freedom of choice and giving time forother waste management options to be developed; anotheradvantage is that the technology for waste storage alreadyexists (see Fig. 11). On the other hand, long-term storageimplies a commitment to active long-term managementand offers little protection against the long-term risks thatcould arise from loss of social stability and control.

Fig. 11. Surface storage facilities for low-, intermediate- andhigh-level waste in The Netherlands(courtesy of COVRA).

Therefore, the shortcomings of this option are that


1. storage passes the obligation for continuoussupervision and maintenance to futuregenerations

2. storage offers no protection against the long-term risks arising from loss of social stabilityand control

3. postponing decisions may not end the conflictsrelating to the issue but even deepen them intime.

The advantages are that1. the postponement of disposal gives decades to

further develop the final disposal method and toconsider any change of plans

2. all in all, further work on preparations for finaldisposal gives future generations more freedomof choice.

One interpretation of the concept of sustainabledevelopment would support the extended storageapproach, where one generation would pass on to the nextgeneration a world with equal opportunity. According tothis idea of a rolling present, the current generation wouldhave a responsibility to provide to the succeedinggeneration the skills, resources, and opportunities to dealwith any problem the current generation passes on.However, if the present generation delays disposaldecisions, awaiting advances in technology, or becausestorage is cheaper, it should not expect future generationsto make a different decision. Such an approach in effectwould always pass responsibility for real action to futuregenerations and for this reason could be judged unethical.

4.6 Phased Deep Geological DisposalA primary motivation for deep geological disposal is basedon the principle that the generation that benefited from theactivities that produced the radioactive waste should bearthe costs of disposal. The safety of a disposal facility


should not depend on its long-term maintenance (or evenknowledge of its existence) by future generations.

At the same time, there needs to be a degree offlexibility: It would be wrong to take steps that would totallyforeclose all other options that future generations might liketo take up. A phased approach to deep geologicaldisposal, where the waste remained retrievable over anextended period, might meet this need. Waste retrievabilitycannot be allowed to lead to a reduction in safety, ofcourse, and the extent to which this might be possiblemight depend on the chosen geological environment.

Multinational repositories have been suggested asa means of providing a centralized disposal facility forradioactive waste generated in several countries (see Sec.6.2), with obvious financial and technical advantages.

There is a consensus among experts that sites canbe properly identified and characterized, that geologicalrepositories can be designed so that no short-termdetriment to populations will result from the waste disposal,and that an acceptable level of safety can be provided fortimes far into the future. Deep geological repositories existat the WIPP site (in operation, see Fig. 12) in Carlsbad,New Mexico, in the United States (www.wipp.ws); andMorseleben (now closed) and Konrad (licensed but notoperational), in Germany (www.dbe.de); several other sitesare under investigation in various countries (see Sec. 5).

Constructing a geological repository ensures thatthe current generation pays most if not all of the financialand social costs of disposing of nuclear waste generatedby the electricity it used. Retrievability of waste allowsfuture generations to decide if there is a better alternativeto geological disposal. Monitoring for an extended periodallows future generations to confirm that it is operating asexpected before fully closing it and facilitates retrieval ofwaste, if deemed necessary. However, the benefits ofpostponing the closing and sealing of the repository haveto be considered together with the possible risks that suchdelay may give rise to.


Fig. 12. Deep geological disposal at the WIPP site(courtesy of DOE).

Retrievability is an important ethical considerationbecause deep geological disposal should not necessarilybe considered a totally irreversible process. In this contextnote that sealing of a site and its access will always requirea specific decision and that such a decision could bedelayed until well after the end of the waste emplacementoperations. Under such circumstances, the incrementalprocess leading to the implementation of the geologicdisposal strategy incorporates the advantages of atemporary storage phase without letting this phase extendindefinitely.

The principle of sustainable development requires abalance between the needs of present and futuregenerations. In this context, many countries favor astepwise approach to repository development, whereby thepresent generation establishes a facility for long-termmanagement of the waste while allowing futuregenerations the option of adopting different managementstrategies if they wish.


4.7 Other Options4.7.1 Deep Borehole DisposalDisposal into very deep boreholes (>2 km) may be suitablefor HLW where a relatively small volume of materialrequires disposal (see Fig. 13a). Unlike disposal in arepository, it would not require large volumes of rock to beexcavated so that there might be fewer disturbances to thesurrounding host rock. The main disadvantage of thismethod is the nonphased approach and the lower levels ofwaste retrievability. The end result of this method would,nonetheless, be broadly similar to phased deep geologicaldisposal.4.7.2 Direct InjectionThis concept involves the injection of liquid radioactivewaste directly into a layer of rock deep undergroundchosen to have suitable characteristics to trap the waste(i.e., minimize any further movement following injection)(see Fig. 13b). This process has been practiced in Russia.4.7.3 Rock MeltingThis concept involves the melting of wastes in the adjacentrock to produce a stable immobilized mass encapsulatingthe waste (see Fig. 13c). This technique has been mainlysuggested for heat-generating wastes such as HLW andhost rocks with suitable characteristics to reduce heatdissipation. The HLW in liquid or solid form could beplaced in an excavated cavity or a deep borehole. Theheat generated by the wastes would then accumulate,resulting in temperatures great enough to melt thesurrounding rock and dissolve the radionuclides in agrowing sphere of molten material. As the rock cools, it willcrystallize and immobilize the radionuclides in the rockmatrix. After complete crystallization and cooling, it isestimated that the waste would be strongly diluted (i.e.,dispersed throughout a large volume of rock).4.7.4 Ice Sheet DisposalDisposal of spent nuclear fuel in ice sheets has also beensuggested in the past and may be feasible, though it has


not been extensively researched (see Fig. 13d). The ideahas the advantage of placing the waste in a slowlychanging environment, devoid of living organisms.Greenland and Antarctica are the only locations withsufficiently large ice sheets, and the latter is precluded byinternational treaty.4.7.5 Sea DisposalHistorically, some countries (e.g., Belgium, theNetherlands, and the United Kingdom) have made use ofsea disposal of solid radioactive wastes. However, thispractice stopped in 1983. Sea disposal of solid wastes wasachieved by simple dumping of waste packages on theseabed (see Fig. 13e). Other schemes envisage placingwaste below the seabed in boreholes or through the use offree-falling penetrators dropped from the surface (see Fig.13f). Areas could be chosen that were geologically stableand well removed from human habitation or importantbiological or mineral resources. A variant option wouldinvolve disposal into a subduction zone at a geologic platemargin (e.g., off the west coast of North America), wherethe relative motion of the plates would cause the waste tobe carried down deep below the Earth’s crust (see Fig.13g). All these options are effectively ruled out byinternational agreements.4.7.6 Disposal into SpaceDisposing of used fuel by sending it into space has beenconsidered and advocated in the past (Fig. 13h). Of alldisposal methods, it has the greatest potential to isolatethe wastes permanently from the biosphere. Whiletechnically possible, the costs of disposal in space wouldbe very high. Studies have indicated that the number offlights required to transport high volumes of radwastewould be impractical; space disposal could be feasible onlyfor the much smaller volumes of HLW. The risk ofcatastrophic accidents is estimated to be about 1% perflight, which suggests that the radiological risk of disposalin space may be unacceptably high.


(a) (b) (c) (d)

(e) (f) (g) (h)

Fig. 13. Schematics of other waste management disposaloptions (courtesy of Nirex).

5. CURRENT WORLDWIDESTATUS OF DISPOSAL

5. CURRENT WORLDWIDESTATUS OF DISPOSAL

5.1 IntroductionMost countries using nuclear power have well-developedstrategies for radioactive wastes, and there are manysimilarities between the programs of different countries.Rather than provide details of the various disposalprograms, which by their nature are ever changing, wewould encourage the reader to visit the Websites listedearlier and also the WasteLink Website atwww.radwaste.org as a starting point.

The amount of waste held by any one country willobviously depend on the extent to which that country hasexploited nuclear materials. Some of the oldest wastesrelate to extraction of radium from uranium for medical


purposes. In relation to electricity-producing nuclearreactors, an important aggravating factor is the propensityof early reactor designs to produce much more waste (perunit of electricity generated) than more recent ones. Ingeneral, however, the volume and the diversity of thewastes in a country's possession will depend on decisionstaken by both past and present national governments inrelation to policies for energy and defense. Importantexamples of such decisions are the extent to which nuclearpower is to be used for electricity production, whetheruranium mineral reserves are to be exploited, and whetherspent nuclear fuel is to be treated as a waste or as aresource, as discussed in earlier sections. For reasonssuch as these, different countries face quite differentchallenges in terms of the quantity and the range of wastetypes that need to be managed.5.2 Storage FacilitiesProvided that the infrastructure, resources, and technologythat created the wastes are largely still in place, storingthese wastes to provide adequate protection to the currentgeneration (short-term management) is relativelystraightforward. Many waste storage facilities exist, andtheir construction and operation are considerably lesscomplicated than, for instance, a nuclear power station or areprocessing plant (see Fig. 11, for example).5.3 Near-Surface DisposalThe radioactivity of wastes suitable for disposal in shallowtrenches or engineered structures (see Fig. 14) will decayto harmless levels in 200 to 300 years. Such wastes arelow-level and short-lived intermediate-level wastes (30years or less half-life and maybe very low concentrationsof long-lived materials). The design of the trenches andstructures reflects the need to provide an adequate degreeof isolation, depending on the level of radioactivityassociated with the particular types of waste.

CURRENT WORLDWIDE STATUS OF DISPOSAL 55

Fig. 14. Disposal vaults at Centre de I’Aube(courtesy of ANDRA).

Where it is relatively easier to do so, somecountries have chosen to put these wastes in minedfacilities—several tens of metres below ground—such as inFinland and Sweden (see Fig.15). The Swiss concept forlow- and intermediate-level waste is to emplace it within amountain horizontally accessible.

Fig. 15. Schematic of Forsmark low- and short-livedintermediate-level waste repository(courtesy of SKB).

5.4 Deep DisposalDeep disposal of TRU waste has been taking place in theWIPP facility since March 1999. The only other deep


facility to have operated is the Morsleben repository inGermany, but this was for low- and intermediate-levelwastes and is now closed, although some disposals didtake place at the Asse salt mine in Germany. Also inGermany, the Konrad repository for non-heat-generatingwastes was licensed in 2002, but it has yet to take anywaste.

Table 3 provides a summary of the latestinformation on disposal (as of August 2002) for manycountries with nuclear programs.

Table 3.Summary of International Practice

Country Low-Level / Short-LivedIntermediate - Level

Facility

Long-Lived ILW / HLW /Spent Nuclear Fuel Deep

Facility

Australia Site selection started Not applicable

Belgium Options being discussed withseveral local communities

Investigations at Mol deepURL, but site not yet chosen.Interested in pursuinginternational option

Canada Options for historic wastebeing discussed at twocommunities – Port Hope andPort Granby

Siting program stalled

CzechRepublic

Three repositories inoperation: Dukovany,Richard, and Bratrství

Some siting studies takingplace

Germany LILW disposed of in formerEast German deep repositoryof Morseleben (now closed)

Some test disposal carriedout at Asse Mine in the pastKonrad facility for non-heat-generating waste licensed in2002Investigations at Gorlebenfacility in suspension

Finland Operation LILW disposed ofin mined facilities underOlkiluoto and Loviiisa NPPS

Site chosen near Olkiluoto forinvestigation by Posiva.

France Centre de la Manche (nowclosed)Centre de l’Aube operationalsince 1992VLLW facility being planned

URL investigations at Bureaimed at Parliamentarydecision on options in 2006

Korea In abeyance

CURRENT WORLDWIDE STATUS OF DISPOSAL 57

Table 3. (cont’d.)Summary of International Practice

Country Low-Level / Short-Lived Intermediate –

Level Facility

Long-Lived ILW / HLW /Spent Nuclear Fuel

Deep FacilityHungary Püspökszilágy since 1976.

Site selection for newfacility commenced in 1993

Siting for deep facility inprogress

Italy Siting for LILW facility beingdiscussed

Siting for storage facilitybeing discussed

Netherlands Storage of all classes of waste at Vlissingen. Disposaldecision deferred for 100 years.

Japan Rokkasho-Mura facilityoperational

Siting program starting. URLinvestigations also takingplace

Russia RADON facilities inoperation

Studies taking place inNovaya Zemlya

Slovenia Decisions not yet taken - pending discussion with Croatia

Spain El Cabril facility in operationsince 1992

Site selection program inabeyance

Sweden Forsmark mined facility inoperation

Investigations under way atseveral sites

Switzerland Wellenberg site had beenchosen; followingSeptember 2002referendum, it wasabandoned

Investigations in north ofcountry but no site selected.Interested in pursuinginternational option.

Taiwan Facility in operation onisland of Lan Yu

Some siting studies.

UnitedKingdom

BNFL’s national Driggfacility in use since 1959.UKAEA local facility atDounreay. Both for LLWonly

Government consultation inprogress on options. Thisfollows failure of ILW sitingprogram in 1997

UnitedStates

Several facilities at DOEsites for defense LLW.Barnwell and Hanford

WIPP for TRU waste inoperation

Yucca Mountain, Nevada,under investigation

6. INTERNATIONALCOOPERATION

6. INTERNATIONALCOOPERATION

6.1 Technical, Scientific, and InfrastructureCooperation

6.1.1 IntroductionAs noted elsewhere in this publication, there are manysimilarities between the ways in which different countriesundertake the management and disposal of theirradioactive waste. There is, therefore, extensivecollaboration and exchange of information betweencountries to keep abreast of each other’s programs, shareknowledge, broaden experience, develop policies andstrategies, and maximize the benefits of research anddevelopment (R&D).


Multinational projects include the following:1. studies of the effects of tunnel excavation in

underground laboratories2. validation and verification of computer models3. development of computer models of the transfer

and accumulation of radioactive materials in theenvironment

4. studies of locations where natural radioactivityis already high or where hydrologicenvironments are similar to those expected inrepositories

5. studies of gas generation and migration6. groundwater movement studies7. studies of mineralization of radionuclides in

cement.

6.1.2 Underground Research LaboratoriesUnderground research laboratories (URLs) (see Fig. 16)provide facilities where geological, engineering, and otherstudies can be carried out at depth. Examples fall into twotypes: generic, where there is usually no intention todevelop a repository; and site specific, whereinvestigations are focused on investigating the suitability ofthe host rock as a potential repository. Most URLs involve(or have involved) international cooperation between wastemanagement agencies and other organizations, such asthe following:

1. SKB’s Äspö hard rock laboratory, Sweden2. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd’s (AECL)

underground research laboratory, Whiteshell,Manitoba, Canada

3. NAGRA’s URL at Grimsel (Fig. 16) and MontTerri in Switzerland

4. ANDRA’s URL under construction at Bure inFrance

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION 63

5. Yucca Mountain Experimental Studies Facilityin Nevada

6. facilities within the WIPP repository in Carlsbad,New Mexico

7. Tono in Japan8. Mol facility in Belgium.

Fig. 16. Grimsel URL (courtesy of NAGRA).

6.1.3 European Union Sixth R&D Framework ProgramThe EU operates framework programs for shared-costradioactive waste R&D. The Sixth R&D FrameworkProgram was launched in 2002. Seehttp://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/index_en.html.

6.1.4 Policy and Infrastructure CooperationClub of AgenciesThe Club of Agencies is an informal gathering of all of thenational radioactive waste management organizations ofthe EU and applicant countries, with the EC providing thesecretariat. The group meets about twice each year andprovides an opportunity for the members to discuss therelative progress of national programs and policies andspecialist topics.


Assistance to Central and Eastern EuropeCassiopee is a consortium of EU radwaste agenciesestablished in February 1993 to assist countries of Centraland Eastern Europe in developing radioactive wastemanagement systems. This is done within the EU’sassistance programs: PHARE and TACIS. Its membershipcomprises ANDRA, COVRA, DBE, ENRESA, ONDRAF,and Nirex.

One of the first tasks undertaken by the consortiumin 1993 was a one-year-long study of major importance tothe respective countries. Since that time, priorities havebeen addressed, and Cassiopee’s work has led to theestablishment of new radwaste agencies in a number ofcountries.EDRAMEDRAM is an acronym for the Environmental Disposal ofRadioactive Materials. It was established in Switzerlandwith membership comprising the waste managementorganizations of

1. Belgium, represented by NIRAS/ONDRAF 2. Canada, represented by OPG 3. Finland, represented by Posiva 4. France, represented by ANDRA 5. Germany, represented by BfS and DBE 6. Japan, represented by NUMO 7. Spain, represented by ENRESA 8. Sweden, represented by SKB 9. Switzerland, represented by NAGRA10. United Kingdom, represented by Nirex11. United States, represented by DOE.

High-level officials from the members meet at leastannually to exchange information on strategic issues andspecialist topics, such as the stepwise process and otherwaste management options.


6.1.5 The Work of IAEA

Much of the information in this publication has referred tothe IAEA. The IAEA undertakes coordinated research; e.g.,the BIOMASS program produces safety standards forradioactive waste under the RADWASS program. All ofthese activities bring together experts from many countries.6.1.6 OECD Nuclear Energy AgencyThe NEA is an agency of the OECD (see www.nea.fr).Membership currently consists of all EU member countriesas well as Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Hungary,Iceland, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Norway,Slovak Republic, Switzerland, Turkey, and the UnitedStates.

The primary objective of the NEA is to promotecooperation among the governments of its participatingcountries in furthering the development of nuclear poweras a safe, environmentally acceptable and economicalenergy source. This is achieved by

1. encouraging harmonization of nationalregulatory polices and practices, with particularreference to the safety of nuclear installations,protection of humans against ionizing radiation,preservation of the environment, radioactivewaste management, and nuclear third-partyliability and insurance

2. assessing the contribution of nuclear power tothe overall energy supply by keeping underreview the technical and economic aspects ofnuclear power growth and forecasting demandand supply for the different phases of thenuclear fuel cycle

3. developing exchanges of scientific andtechnical information, particularly throughparticipation in common services

4. ensuring that appropriate technical andeconomic studies on nuclear energydevelopment and the fuel cycle are carried out


5. setting up international R&D programs and jointundertakings.

In these and related tasks, the NEA works closely incollaboration with the IAEA, with which it has concluded acooperation agreement, as well as with other internationalorganizations in the nuclear field.

The NEA exists to promote cooperation amongmember states in furthering the development of nuclearpower. Within the NEA, the Radioactive WasteManagement Committee (RWMC) considers radioactivewaste disposal issues and has focused increasingly on theselection and evaluation of potential disposal sites.

6.2 Multinational Radioactive Waste Facilities6.2.1 GeneralThe issue of the development of multinational facilities isquite topical and controversial and inspires many debatesin a number of international forums and conferences. TheIAEA has produced a document on the subject.6 Theinformation that follows is taken primarily from thatdocument, which covers the main issues involved.

As described throughout this publication, mostcountries with radioactive waste have developed nationalstrategies for its management. Most recognize thatcooperation on multinational facilities is politically difficult,and the principle that a country or community that enjoysthe benefit of nuclear energy should also carry the burdenof managing the radioactive waste—the principle ofproximity.

However, several examples can be given ofinternational cooperation in waste disposal. Somecountries have accepted responsibility for and the custodyof waste generated in other countries. For example, spent-fuel-reprocessing contracts did not originally containclauses on the return of reprocessing waste to the countryof origin. Other examples are the return of U.S. enrichedspent research reactor fuel to the United States (a practice


that was discontinued in 1988 and has recently beenresumed) and the return to the former USSR ofcommercial spent fuel of USSR origin.

The subject has also been debated extensivelywithin the RWMC of the OECD/NEA. Preliminary studieson waste equivalence, which is an important issue if swapsor exchanges of waste are envisaged, were performedunder the auspices of the EC. Several (IAEA) memberstates already expressed interest in this concept, and it is,therefore, proposed that the IAEA assess the many factorsinvolved in such a concept.

Multinational repository means a disposal facility ina country (host country or host) that is used for thedisposal of radioactive waste generated in severalcountries (partner countries or partners). Such a repositorycould be operated and managed by the host country or bya multinational consortium. (See www.arius-world.org.)

For obvious reasons of transportation distance andspecific interests, the concept might apply, in the firstplace, to geographically grouped countries. A multinationalrepository is most likely to be located in a volunteering hostcountry. This country must also be able to demonstrate anadequate level of technological skills, resources, andcommitment for implementation.

One important reason for considering multinationalrepositories is that some countries generate such smallvolumes of some types of waste that it would beeconomically unreasonable to attempt final disposal inthese countries. Costs for site selection, sitecharacterization, and establishment and licensing of therepository would be disproportionate with regard to the sizeof the nuclear program. A multinational repository couldoffer a substantial benefit to these countries.

Regional collaboration for the disposal of LILWfrom the use of radioisotopes and irradiation sources mayalso be justified.


6.2.2 Scenarios of CooperationThe following scenarios envisaged by the IAEA describetypical situations from which a multinational repositorymight develop:

1. Scenario I—Several industrialized countrieswith relatively small nuclear energy programsdecide to cooperate for the disposal of theirnuclear fuel waste.

2. Scenario II—A country with a large nuclearenergy program offers disposal services toother countries with a limited production ofradioactive waste.

3. Scenario III—Countries with small nuclearenergy programs in varying stages ofdevelopment seek assistance from each other.Among other issues is that of finding a suitableand common disposal option. This scenario isintended to assist countries whose sole use ofnuclear materials is in the industrial, researchreactors, or medical arena. While a repositorydedicated solely to the disposal of medicalwaste and spent radiation sources could beconstructed, it seems possible and preferable tohandle these materials as part of a larger wastedisposal project.

4. Scenario IV—A country without any nuclearexpertise offers land for the disposal ofradioactive waste to nuclear energy countries.In this scenario there is no expertise availablein the country offering its disposal services. Itcould violate existing agreements such as theJoint Convention on the Safety of Spent FuelManagement and on the Safety of RadioactiveWaste Management, which preventstransboundary movements of radioactive wastein countries that lack the necessaryinfrastructure to properly manage the waste.


5. Scenario V—Specializing of nationalrepositories for specific types of waste andinternational exchanges. Given local geologicalconditions, exchanges of waste types,preferably on a basis of mutual equivalence,can be envisaged. A good example could bethe exchange of heat-generating HLW againstnon-heat-generating TRU.

6.2.3 Public InvolvementPast experience indicates that establishing a radioactivewaste repository is as much a political as a technicalundertaking. Thus, the public sentiment of a host countrymust be assessed along with its geologic suitability.Countries considering a multinational repository must haveconfidence that the host country can sustain publicacceptance of the facility. Assurances regarding the safetransport and management of all waste materials,monetary incentives, and a meaningful and well-definedpublic participation program could all be addressed innegotiations among partners to foster continued publicsupport among host country citizens.6.2.4 ConclusionReference 5 examines many rational arguments andpotential benefits for the development and implementationof multinational repositories. However, one should also beaware of the many political and public acceptance issuesthat may arise in opposition to the multinational concept. Aprerequisite for such an approach is the achievement ofconsensus among the relevant countries and regions, inparticular regarding the transboundary movement ofradioactive waste. In this context, many countries areconcentrating their efforts on demonstrating the feasibilityof safe disposal in their own country. Such a step could bea prerequisite to future negotiations on the implementationof multinational repositories.

7. INTERNATIONALINSTRUMENTS

7. INTERNATIONALINSTRUMENTS

7.1 GeneralBroadly speaking, four international organizationscontribute to the development and statement of principlesfor radioactive waste management. They are

1. IAEA2. ICRP3. OECD - NEA (discussed in Sec. 6)4. EU


7.1.1 The International Atomic Energy AgencyThe IAEA (www.iaea.org) was established by the UnitedNations in 1957 to ensure world cooperation for thepeaceful use of nuclear energy. It has some 113 membercountries and is responsible for the prevention of thediversion of nuclear materials to weapons production. Inaddition, the IAEA has also been responsible for thedevelopment of safety guidelines in relation to the keycomponents of the nuclear cycle. These are set out in aseries of color-coded documents.

While IAEA guidelines and regulations have nolegal jurisdiction, in practice, member countries usuallycomply with their recommendations. As a multilateralinternational organization, the IAEA’s influence isconsiderable because of its relationship with the WorldBank and so forth. Because these multilateralorganizations tend to work together, few countries risksouring relations with any particular agency.7.1.2 International Commission on Radiological

ProtectionRadiological protection dates back to the early years ofmedical uses of radiation and radioactive materials, withvarious countries introducing protection rules during thefirst few decades of the 20th century. Since 1928, theICRP (www.icrp.org) has published universalrecommendations, regularly updated in the light of recentinformation, on the effects of radiation exposure on health.The ICRP is an independent body of medical and scientificexperts.7.1.3 European UnionRecommendations made by the ICRP, IAEA, and OECD-NEA form the basis of specific European Communitydirectives issued by the EC (www.europa.eu.int). Theprinciples, standards, and requirements relating to nuclearand environmental matters in all member states of the EUare based on the Treaty of the European Atomic EnergyCommunity (Euratom) of 1957, the Treaty of the EuropeanEconomic Community (EEC) of 1957, and the Single

INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS 75

European Act of 1987. They are implemented inaccordance with the requirements of these treaties,through formal and binding regulations, directives, anddecisions.

7.2 Specific Examples of Treaties and InternationalLegislation

This section is only intended to show examples of anumber of international instruments. It cannot be regardedas fully comprehensive. For further information, the readeris encouraged to visit the legal section of the NEA Websiteat www.nea.fr.7.2.1 European UnionEuratom Treaty Article 37Member states are required to provide the EC with suchgeneral data relating to any plan for the disposal ofradioactive waste as will make it possible to determinewhether the implementation of such a plan is liable toresult in the radioactive contamination of another memberstate.Basic Safety Standards Directive 96/29 (Euratom)This directive lays down basic safety standards for theprotection of the health of workers and the general publicagainst the dangers of ionizing radiation.1991 Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment ina Transboundary ContextThis convention was agreed to in Espoo, Finland, in 1991under the aegis of the U.N. Economic Commission forEurope, whose members include European countries,Canada, and the United States. This convention seeks tocontrol adverse transboundary environmental impact ofactivity and enhancement of international cooperation inassessing environmental impact in a transboundarycontext.


EC Directive 85/337/EEC (as amended by 97/11/EC) onEnvironmental AssessmentThe requirements for environmental impact assessment(EIA) within the EU are set out in Council Directive97/11/EC of March 3, 1997, amending Directive85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certainpublic and private projects on the environment. Aconsolidated version of the amended directive is alsoavailable on the EU Website athttp://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/full-legal-text/9711_consolidated.pdf.

The amended EIA directive predates the U.N.Economic Commission for Europe’s 1998 Convention onAccess to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making, and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters,generally known as the Aarhus Convention. Thisconvention has significant implications for the directivebecause it contains stricter public participation provisionsand has been signed by the EU as well as the individualmember states and most of the applicant countries. Aproposal for a directive of the European Parliament and ofthe council amending a number of directives, including theEIA directive, has been published.

7.2.2 International Rules On Sea DisposalLondon Dumping Convention 1972The London Dumping Convention originally adopted aglobal ban on the dumping at sea of only high-levelradioactive wastes. In 1983, this was extended by aconference resolution to a moratorium on the dumping atsea of all radioactive wastes. In 1985, the duration of themoratorium was extended indefinitely. In November 1993,the parties to the convention adopted permanentamendments to Annex 1 prohibiting the dumping of allradioactive wastes at sea.


U.N. Conference on Environment and DevelopmentAgenda 21This document has no legal effect. It does, however,represent a significant advance in international cooperationin the implementation of global environmental policies. Itwas adopted by consensus at the U.N. Conference onEnvironment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in1992. It sets out an environmental action plan forsustainable development and seeks support for the safeand environmentally sound management and disposal ofradioactive wastes.

Paragraph 22.5 (c) states:States... should:... not promote or allow the storageor disposal of high-level, intermediate-level andlow-level radioactive wastes near the marineenvironment unless they determine that scientificevidence, consistent with the applicableinternationally agreed principles and guidelines,shows that such storage or disposal poses nounacceptable risk to people and the marineenvironment... .

The Convention for Protection of the Marine Environmentof the North East Atlantic (OSPAR)The 1992 OSPAR Convention, when ratified, will replacethe 1972 Oslo and 1974 Paris Conventions. Theconvention bans the disposal at sea of all low- andintermediate-level radioactive wastes, but includes anoption for France and the United Kingdom to resume thepractice, subject to certain conditions, after a period of 15years from January 1993. The United Kingdom hasindicated that it intends to give up its option. (Seewww.ospar.org.)U.N. Law of the Sea Convention 1982The U.N. Law of the Sea Convention imposes a verybroadly expressed duty on states:

States shall take all measures necessary to ensurethat activities under their jurisdiction or control are


so conducted as not to cause damage by pollutionto other States and their environment...(Article 194(2))

7.2.3 International Convention on the Safety of Spent-Fuel and Radioactive Waste Management

This convention was negotiated under the aegis of theIAEA and is now open for signature and ratification.It reaffirms the importance to the international communityof ensuring that sound practices are planned andimplemented for the safety of spent-fuel and radioactivewaste management. Its objectives are

1. to achieve and maintain a high level of safetyworldwide in spent-fuel and radioactive wastemanagement through the enhancement ofnational measures and internationalcooperation, including where appropriate,safety-related technical cooperation

2. to ensure that during all stages of spent-fueland radioactive waste management, there areeffective defenses against potential hazards sothat individuals, society, and the environmentare protected from harmful effects of ionizingradiation, now and in the future, in such a waythat the needs and aspirations of the presentgeneration are met without compromising theability of future generations to meet their needsand aspirations

3. to prevent accidents with radiologicalconsequences and to mitigate theirconsequences should they occur during anystage of spent-fuel or radioactive wastemanagement.

The convention contains requirements regarding suchmatters as general safety, siting of facilities, design andconstruction of facilities, safety assessment, environmentalassessment, operational controls, regulatory bodies and


licensing, decommissioning, and transboundarymovement.

7.2.4 International Treaties and Conventions onTransboundary Shipments of Radioactive Waste

The Fourth ACP-EEC Convention (Lomé Convention)This convention was signed at LomJ, in Togo, in December1989 and was approved by the EC in February 1991. ACPrefers to 69 countries in the African Caribbean and Pacificregions, mostly former colonies of European countries.Article 39 states:

The Community shall prohibit all direct or indirectexport of hazardous waste or radioactive waste tothe ACP States, while at the same time the ACPStates shall prohibit the direct or indirect import intotheir territory of such waste from the Community orfrom any other country, without prejudice to specificinternational undertakings to which the contractingparties have subscribed or may subscribe in thefuture in these two areas within the competentinternational fora. These provisions do not preventa Member State to which an ACP State has chosento export waste for processing from returning theprocessed waste to the ACP State of origin.

The Bamako ConventionIn 1991, the Organisation of African Unity adopted theBamako Convention on the ban of the import into Africaand the control of transboundary movement andmanagement of hazardous wastes within Africa. Thisconvention is closely modeled on the Basel Convention,but unlike the Basel Convention, it also applies to U.N.waste stream YO, “all wastes containing or contaminatedby radionuclides, the concentration or properties of whichresult from human activity.”


Directive 92/3/Euratom on the Supervision and Control ofShipments of Radioactive Wastes Between Member Statesand into and out of the European CommunityThis directive applies to shipments of radioactive waste, asdefined, between member sates and into and out of theEuropean Community whenever the quantities andconcentrations exceed the levels laid down. Specificprovisions apply to the reshipment of radioactive waste.The directive came into force on January 1, 1994. Article11 states:The competent authorities of Member States shall notauthorise shipments:

1. either to:

(a) a destination south of latitude 60°

south;(b) a State party to the fourth ACP-EEC

Convention which is not a member ofthe Community, taking account,however of Article 14; (permittingreturn of wastes to country of originafter reprocessing);

2. or to a third country which, in the opinion of thecompetent authorities of the country of origin,in accordance with the criteria referred to inArticle 20, does not have the technical, legal oradministrative resources to manage theradioactive waste safely.


REFERENCES1. The Principles of Radioactive Waste

Management, Safety Series No. 111-F, InternationalAtomic Energy Agency (1995).

2. Classification of Radioactive Waste, A SafetyGuide, Safety Series No. 111-G-1.1, International AtomicEnergy Agency (1994).

3. Establishing a National System for RadioactiveWaste Management, Safety Series No. 111-S-1,International Atomic Energy Agency (1995).

4. Future Financial Liabilities of Nuclear Activities,Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development(1996).

5. W. Miller et al., Geological Disposal ofRadioactive Wastes and Natural Analogues, WasteManagement Series, Vol. 2, Pergamon Press (2000).

6. “Technical, Institutional and Economic FactorsImportant for Developing a Multinational RadioactiveWaste Repository,” TECDOC-1021, International AtomicEnergy Agency (1998).

International Nuclear Societies Council - Ne

Documents

Transcript of International Nuclear Societies Council - Ne