Idaho Falls3 Jan.1961

Kerr-McGee6 Jan.1986 Three Mile Island

28 Mar.1979

Enrico Fermi5 Oct.1966

Sequoyah11 Feb.1981 Windscale

7 Oct.1957Sellafield

Aug'04 - Apr '05

Lucens (CH)21 Jan.1969

Chernobyl26 Apr.1986

Tsuruga25 Apr.1981

Tokaimura30 Sept.1999

Kasli1957

Brown's Ferry22 Mar.1975

JohnstonIslands

ChristmasIslands(US &UK)

Nevada Test Site(US &UK)

Reggan

In Ekker

Mururoaand Fangataufa Atoll

Emu Fields& Maralinga

Bikini,Enewetak &Run It Atolls

AlaskaSite

Lop Nor

IndiaTest Site

SouthwesternPakistan

SemipalatinskKurchatov

Monte BelloIsland

Lira(Burlinskiy)

Kasputin Yar& Azgyr

Say-Utes

NovayaZemlya

Fig. 1: Global Nuclear ConcernsFig. 1: Global Nuclear Concerns

Major and Minor Nuclear Testing Sites

Percentage of ElectricityProduced ThroughNuclear Energy (2004)

Radioactive WasteSea Dumping

Lost Nuclear Cargo

Lost Nuclear Weapon

Nuclear Accident

USA

Russia and Former USSR

France

United Kingdom

China

India

Pakistan

South Africa

No active reactor

under 10

10 to 30

30 to 50

50 to 70

more than 70

Data Sources: UN Atlas of the Oceans, Australian government, Australia Geoscience, The International Atomic Energy Agency, World Nuclear Association, UNSCEAR

After remaining unnoticed for nine months, a leak at the Sellafield nuclear waste reprocessing complex was discovered on 19 April 2005. It spewed over 83000 litres of highly radioactive material (see Box 1). This failure raises serious concerns about the security of the nuclear industry, related early warning systems and how and when such information is communicated to the public.

Along with power plants' safety and energy sufficiency, avoiding putting at risk future generations should remain a high priority. Using, and sometimes wasting, high quantities of energy, and leaving toxic waste management and decommissioning of power plants for the future is ethically questionable. The storage of nuclear waste, some of which remains radioactive for more than 100 000 years, also raises the issue of the real costs of this energy, as long-term infrastructural and monitoring costs are rarely considered.

Waste accumulation is constantly growing: the global amount of spent fuel was 220 000 tonnes in the

year 2000 and growing by almost 10 000 tonnes each year(a). As of now, no plan for permanent disposal of nuclear wastes has yet been developed. An increasing number of radioactive waste dumps, from both military and civilian programmes, threaten to contaminate large regions of our planet (see Fig. 1).

Nuclear energy production is praised by many for emitting very limited amounts of greenhouse gases and is thus a tempting option for governments attempts to fulfill Kyoto Protocol requirements. However, this argument is a hallow one if in turn tonnes of radioactive material are released into the environment. A report from the European Commission(1) states that Sellafield and La Hague are the highest sources of radioactivity worldwide. Their combined yearly radioactive isotope release corresponds to a "large-scale nuclear accident". Nuclear power facilities have also benefited from large investments that alternative energy sources thus far have not received and that could prove to be more efficient in terms of limiting global warming.

Environment Alert BulletinEnvironment Alert Bulletin

Nuclear Waste: Is Everything Under Control ?

88

Nuclear power is often seen as an alternative for electricity supply given limited global oil resources and necessary cut down on green house gas emissions. However, highly radioactive nuclear wastes remain dangerous for thousands of years. Finding safe disposal sites for them remains an unresolved issue and reprocessing facilities are not a clean option: their combined yearly radioactive isotope release equals a "large-scale nuclear accident"(1). Radioactive waste and nuclear power plants waiting for decommissioning might put future generations at risk.

Nuclear Waste

ORE1

2

3

Recovering Uranium, excavation may be in open pit mining (1) and underground (2). In-Situ leaching (ISL, 3) uses oxygenated groundwater that is circulated through a porous orebody to dissolve the uranium and bring it to the surface.

Milling extracts the uranium from the ore. Milling produces a uranium oxide concentrate (80% uranium). The remainder of the ore becomes tailings, containing long-lived radioactive materials in low concentrations and toxic materials such as heavy metals.

Conversion, Enrichment and Refinement. The enrichment process produces higher concentration of the fissile isotope of uranium (U-235) by removing over 85% of the U-238.

Fuel fabrication, generally in the form of ceramic pellets, encased in metal tubes to form fuel rods,

Reasearch and Power Reactors, in the reactor the nuclei of U-235 atoms splits (fission) and releases energy which is used to heat water.

Radioisotopes for:Health and Medecine

Industry and ResearchFood and Agriculture

Radioactive material. The concentration of fission fragments and heavy elements increases to the point where it is no longer practical to continue to use the fuel. So after 12-24 months "spent fuel" is removed from the reactor.

Reprocessing. Uranium from spent fuel can be reused as fuel after conversion and enrichment. In reactors that use MOX fuel, plutonium substitutes for the U-235 in normal uranium oxide fuel.

Waste Disposal. At the present time, there are no disposal facilities in operation in which spent fuel, not destined for reprocessing, and the waste from reprocessing can be placed.

Deep Geological Repository

Rock Cavernsat Intermediate DepthSea Water

Under the Ocean Floor

Sources: Secretariat of the Basel Convention (2004)

Arlit uranium open pit mining, deep in the Sahara desert in Niger. Photo: COGEMA / O. Martel

Fig. 3: The Nuclear Fuel CycleFig. 3: The Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Data Sources: Nuclear Energy Agency/Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD/NEA)

'92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 00 01 050

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

2250

2500 Tonnes of Heavy Metal

Sweden

Korea

Germany

Japan

UK

France

Canada

USAThis graph presents the evolution over the past decade of spent fuel arisings in nuclear power plants of OECD countries. Data for 2005 are projections and estimates. Spent fuel arisings are only one part of the radioactive waste generated at various

stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. See Fig. 3 for the rest of nuclear waste origin.

Fig. 2: Spent Fuel ArisingsFig. 2: Spent Fuel Arisings

Nuclear WasteRadioactive wastes are generated by mining extraction, use of radioactive fuel in nuclear power plants, decommissioning of nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants and, even from reprocessing of these wastes.

Uranium miningUranium mill tailings are the radioactive sandlike materials that remain after uranium is extracted by milling. Tailings are placed in large mounds called tailings piles which are located close to the mills where the ore is processed. The most important radioactive component of uranium mill tailings is radium, which decays to produce radon, but other hazardous substances are also found such as selenium, molybdenum, uranium and thorium(b). Uranium mill tailings can adversely affect surrounding environments, and therefore public health, through direct contact, air contamination, wind dispersion and water contamination. Amongst other regions, in Kazakhstan several uranium mining sites are still unprotected and present a high contamination risk(3, c) (see Box 2).

Used radioactive fuelCivilian nuclear activities, mostly through generation of electricity and to a lesser extend medical care and research, produce annually about 200 000 m3 of low to intermediate-level waste and 10 000 m3 of high-level waste worldwide (see Figure 2). As some elements have a half-life of up to 100000 years. The effects of such nuclear contamination could be permanent and nearly irreversible(4).

Military wastesNuclear weapons produce nuclear waste called Transuranic (TRU) waste. The most prominent element in most TRU

waste is plutonium. However, other items such as rags, tools and laboratory equipment contaminated with radioactive materials, organic and inorganic residues, also need safe deposit. Following declassification of certain military information, revelations of extensive dumping of military wastes and reactors in the Russian Arctic, and of other examples of poor past disposal, added a new dimension to the problem. In 1998, evidence emerged that radioactive waste from 80 scrapped nuclear submarines in the area of the northern Russian naval port of Murmansk had begun leaking into the sea(5). There are currently about 250 nuclear reactors once built and maintained by the Soviet military, no longer in use but still emitting radiation and leaking radioactive waste in the Barents sea.

Further quantities of wastes are generated by the dismantling of old weapons, including 50 tonnes of plutonium in the US for example(6). The global plutonium stockpile is estimated at 1100 tonnes and growing rapidly(7).

ReprocessingWaste can be reprocessed to extract plutonium from the spent fuel. Although this allows reuse of nuclear fuel, it releases considerably larger volumes of radioactivity than any other nuclear activities. The two main reprocessing facilities are La Hague (France) and Sellafield (United Kingdom). Currently France, the UK, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, the Netherlands and Belgium ship their nuclear wastes there for reprocessing.

Following a study made for the European Parliament(1),reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at Sellafield and La Hague constitute the world's larges man-made releases of radioactivity into the environment, corresponding to a “large-scale nuclear accident every year”. According to this report the Sellafield site has the highest concentration of radioactivity on the planet. The recent leak at Sellafield (see Box 1) attests of the failure of the current warning system. Given the risk of contamination, a close and independent monitoring system needs to be implemented. Sellafield discharges some eight million litres of nuclear waste into the sea each day. It contaminates seawater,

Necessity for Nuclear Waste DisposalDue to food-chain processes and environmental cycles, adequate protection of the human population from exposure to radiation cannot be dissociated from the protection of the environment(2, f). Radioactive material needs to be disposed in safe locations, where leaks are least likely to occur. The radioactivity decreases through time at various rates depending on material; a decrease by half is called the half-life, e.g. half-life of Caesium-137 is 30 years, Plutonium-239 is 24400 years, Iodine-129 is 17 millions years. Most nuclear wastes need to be safely stored for hundreds of thousands of years. The difficulty lies in finding such long-term sites, hence why few if any countries has yet found a final disposal.

Environment Alert Bulletin

A leak at the Sellafiel nuclear reprocessing facility released 83 000 litres of contaminated material between August 2004 and April 2005. This contains about 20 tonnes of highly radioactive spent nuclear waste fuel dissolved in nitric acid. The origin was said to come from "a badly designed pipe" and spills into a secondary container. The IAEA classified this event as a "serious incident".

While British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) stated that their wasn't any risk for the public, this event reveals three types of failure: technological failure, given the toxicity of the material treated at Sellafield, since "a badly designed pipe" should have been identified. Warning system failure: despite its magnitude, the leak remained unspotted during nine months. Communication failure: discovered on 19 April 2005, the

"incident" was only revealed to the public by the

Independent newspaper on 29 May 2005, and many details are still not clear.

Aerial View of Sellafield Site in 2000Sources: Independent Newspaper, BBC News, British Nuclear Fuels

Box 1: Sellafield Leak Undetected for Nine MonthsBox 1: Sellafield Leak Undetected for Nine Months

RR

VLODAR

KAZAKHSTAN

RUSSIA

Semey(Semipalatinsk)Astana

UST-KAMENOGORSK

SEMIPALATINSKKURCHATOV

TEST SITE

Kurchatov

KAZSABTON(former Tselinny Miningand Chemical Combine)

STEPNOGORSK

PA

LAKEBALKHASH

LAKEZAISAN

LAKEALAKOL

Irtysh

Zaisan

Karagandy

Ayaguz

200 4000

Kilometres

R Active research reactor

Former nuclear test site. Largeportion of surrounding areascontaminated.

Uranium mining and millingfacility waste related toexploitation

Radioactive waste storage sitegenerally poorly maintained,and alleged to pose asignificant risk to healthand environment

Chemical and biologicalresearch centre or productionplants being dismantled

The Central Asian region is rich in natural resources which have been industrially exploited and processed for decades, often leading to considerable environmental pollution and degraded land. Decades of Uranium mining has left the region with poorly maintained radioactive waste storage sites. Kazakhstan's already high level of natural radiation is increased by the remnants of nuclear test sites including the Semipalatinsk Polygon. Accumulated over years of Soviet and Warsaw-bloc nuclear production, the waste lies buried under thin layers of gravel, sand and clay. Much of it is still highly radioactive, emitting 4000 micro-rays of radiation per hour - 10 to 50 times above internationally recognized standards. In the 1950s, when little thought was given to long-term safety, the toxins were deposited in unstable ground containers. Today these two-foot deep metal containers are susceptible to earthquakes, landslides and floods. A sudden change in climate conditions or geological activity could send tonnes of toxic waste into rivers and ultimately enter groundwater system(10, 11).

Box 2: Radioactive Hazards in NE KazakhstanBox 2: Radioactive Hazards in NE Kazakhstan

Potential SolutionsFollowing the adoption of the Basel Convention(b) which bans nuclear waste dumping at sea, only two solutions are left for managing radioactive wastes.

Decommissioning facilitiesMany factors influence the cost of decommissioning: type of facility, size, period of decommissioning, volume of waste, costs of waste disposal, radioactivity, way of calculating costs and legal requirements for decontamination of the site. Future nominal costs are much higher than real costs: due to inflation, the costs computed in 1991 for decommissioning a nuclear power plant (e.g. 1 150-MW US Seabrook NPP decommissioning was estimated at US$324 million), but since the dismantlement begins in 2026 the costs have risen to US$1600 million (in 2026 US$). Many uncertainties exist and will remain for some decades, because no large reactors with normal operating lives (20 to 30 years) have yet been dismantled. The Superphenix Fast Breeder Reactor (France, 1 240 MW), operated from 1986 to 1997. Present estimates

of decommissioning costs are US$5000 million (i.e. US$ 4032million per MW). The Brennilis nuclear power plant is the first "industrial-scale" dismantling example. One of the most significant problems remains the lack of waste disposal sites.

StorageA submission by the Royal Society to Britain's House of Lords inquiry on nuclear waste found that there is a general consensus: all countries are considering underground disposal as "the only viable long-term option" (safe storage and disposal sites, as well as funds covering costs of security, decommissioning, decontamination and clean-up). Paradoxically, every country that has tried to find a safe burial site has failed. Countries have been facing both more geological complexities and political opposition than expected(8). The risk to avoid when burying nuclear wastes is the spread of radioactivity into the surrounding environment. If absorbed into the food chain, it can cause unpredictable genetic damage. For example, cleaning up the environmental damage just from the US nuclear weapons programme was estimated to cost up to US$375 billion and to take 75 years(9).

Over 500 nuclear plants have been built worldwide. Most of them are at the end of their useful life and will soon need to be closed and decommissioned. When assessing the real cost of nuclear energy path (e.g. the price of electricity), storage costs are usually not taken into account except in Sweden (see Figure 6).

sediments and marine life such as winkles and lobsters, making the Irish Sea the most radioactively contaminated in the world. Plutonium dust has been found in the houses of residents living along the Irish Sea coast.La Hague is the biggest importer of foreign spent fuel in the world. Each year hundreds of millions of litres of low-level radioactive waters are discharged into the English Channel. The contamination spreads northwards along the North Sea coasts of Europe and can be measured in Nordic and even Arctic waters. The seabed around the end of the discharge pipe has become an unintended nuclear waste dump, with sediment contamination breaching EU levels for controlled nuclear waste. Athmospheric discharges from La Hague rose considerably over the last few years, Carbon-14 eight-fold, Krypton-85 five-fold and Tritium three-fold between 1980 and 1990(1).The radioactive waste are generated by mining extraction, use of radioactive fuel in nuclear power plants, decommissioning of nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants and, strangely enough, from reprocessing of these wastes.

Nuclear Waste

The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on maps and graphics do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Printed on recycled paper.

Swedish law requires that companies owning nuclear power plants be responsible for the handling and final disposal of nuclear waste. To fulfil this requirement, nuclear companies have formed a joint company, the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co. (SKB).

The industry conducts research for final disposal and supervises existing waste facilities that are in operation. Until now, used nuclear fuel and other high-level nuclear waste are placed in temporary storage at CLAB, the Central Interim Storage Facility for Spent Nuclear Fuel, located near the Oskarshamn Nuclear Power Plant. The research for a final repository is focusing on bedrock, however the method still needs to be approved and the site selected.

The financing system created to cover the costs of nuclear waste is based on the payment to the state by the reactor licensees of a fee per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced. The fee is included in the electricity price paid by the consumer. The exact fee varies somewhat from year-to- year. The fee is calculated by SKB and established by the Government and then paid into the state Nuclear Waste Fund which administers the funds, based on the assumption that the facilities will be operative for 25 years. Sources: Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate

Box 3: The Swedish ExampleBox 3: The Swedish Example

For further information

United Nations Environment ProgrammeDEWA / GRID-Europe

Tel: (4122) 917.8294Fax: (4122) 917.8029

E-mail: earlywarning@grid.unep.chWeb: www.grid.unep.ch

Sources: 1 EU Parliament 2001. "Possible Toxic Effects From The Nuclear Reprocessing Plants at Sellafield And Cap de la Hague". Wise Paris Report, October 20012 OCDE/NEA 2002. NEA News 2002 - n° 20.23 UNEP, GRID-Arendal (2003): Thirteen Environmental Stories from Central Asia4 Tengelsen, W. E. 1995. "Environmentally Sound Disposal of Wastes". Sea Technology, May 19955 Edwards, R. 1998. "Hot Waters". New Scientist, 9 May 1998, p.116 Curtis, C. 1994. (US Department of Energy) Congressional testimony 26 May 1994, quoted in "Radwaste: DOE Considers Storing Plutonium at Bases." A.P 27 May 19947 Panofsky, W. et al. 1994. U.S National Academy of Sciences, January 1994. Cited in Kiernan, V. "A Bomb Waiting to Explode." New Scientist, 26 February 1994, p. 14-15 8 Edwards, R. 1999. "It's Got to Go". New Scientist, 27 March 1999 p 229 US Department of Energy. 1995. Quoted in "Nuclear legacy." New Scientist, 15 April 1995, p. 1110 UNEP, UNDP, OSCE (2003) : Transforming risks into cooperation Environment and Security; The Case of South Eastern Europe and Central Asia11 Secretariat of the Basel Convention, UNEP, GRID-Arendal (2004): Vital Waste Graphics

URLs: a The World Nuclear Association (WNA) at www.world-nuclear.orgb Environmental Health & Safety Online at www.ehso.com/nuclear.htmc Environment and Security Initiative at www.envsec.orgd Secretariat of the Basel Convention, UNEP at www.basel.inte The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at www.iaea.orgf The Nuclear Energy Agency at www.nea.fr

International ConventionsDeveloping safety standards is based on the wealth of experience provided through several national and international organisations. In the last two decades, a particular concern for the international community has been the generation and trans-boundary movements of hazardous wastes and their impact on developing countries. The most important international response to these problems is the Basel Convention on the Control of Trans-boundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal - 1989 (effective 1992)(d). In 1995 the Convention was amended to impose a ban on hazardous waste exports from OECD to non-OECD countries, including nuclear waste.

In 1997, The Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management was adopted by a diplomatic conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)(e). It is the first international agreement on the safety of spent fuel and the management of radioactive waste. The IAEA is the international organisation that oversees the peaceful uses of atomic energy. This United Nations agency based in Vienna, Austria, was founded in 1957 and has 138 member states, including both countries with nuclear energy programmes and countries without. The IAEA develops safety standards, guidelines and recommendations and provides technical guidance to member states regarding radiological practices and protection. Member states use the standards and guidelines in developing their own legislation, regulatory documents and guidelines. The IAEA's Waste Safety Section works to co-ordinate the development of internationally-agreed standards on the safety of radioactive waste. In addition, the IAEA helps member states by providing technical assistance with services, equipment and training and by conducting radiological assessments.

The Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD/NEA)(2, f) is based in Paris, France. Many of its activities are similar to those of the IAEA. It has a variety of waste management programs involving its 27 member states, and works closely with the IAEA on nuclear safety standards and other technical activities.

G R I DE u r o p e

G. Giuliani, A. De BonoS. Kluser, P. Peduzzi

December 2005