Radioactive Waste:Some Topical Issues

Research Paper 96/30

29 February 1996

The Government has recently conducted a major review of radioactive waste managementpolicy: its first for a decade. This paper outlines some of the most topical issues. Theseinclude the policy governing the disposal of high-level waste and the return of such waste tothe country of origin following reprocessing in the UK of foreign spent fuel; the currentposition of Nirex's proposal to build a repository for intermediate and low-level waste nearSellafield in Cumbria; and details of Government policy concerning the use of controlledburial for low-level waste at landfill sites.

Donna GoreScience and Environment Section

House of Commons Library

Library Research Papers are compiled for the benefit of Members of Parliament and theirpersonal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with Membersand their staff but cannot advise members of the general public.

Radioactive Waste: Some Topical Issues

The Government has recently conducted a major review of radioactive waste managementpolicy: its first for a decade. The results of its deliberation were published initially as aconsultative document (Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy PreliminaryConclusions, Department of the Environment, August 1994) and finally as a White Paper(Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy Final Conclusions, Cm 2919, July 1995).

This paper seeks to outline some of the most topical issues.

An explanation of the different types of relevant radiation is given followed by an accountof the current criteria for the classification of radioactive waste into four categories. High-level waste (HLW), intermediate -level waste (ILW) , low-level waste (LLW) and very low-level waste (VLLW). This classification is under review and may be refined to take accountof half-life and type of radiation.

An account is included of the policy governing the storage and disposal of HLW and thereturn of such waste to the country of origin following reprocessing in the UK of spentforeign fuel.

The current position of the proposal by UK Nirex Ltd to build a repository for ILW and someLLW at Sellafield in Cumbria is outlined.

Finally details of Government policy concerning the controlled burial of LLW at landfill sitesis given.

CONTENTS

Page

I Introduction 7

II Radioactivity 9

A. Alpha, Beta and Gamma Rays 9

B. Radioactive Decay 9

C. Units of Measurement 10

III Waste Categories 10

A. High Level Waste 10

B. Intermediate Level Waste 11

C. Low Level Waste 11

D. Very Low Level Waste 11

IV Reclassification of Waste 12

V Government Policy for High Level Waste 12

A. Reprocessing Spent Fuel from Foreign Utilities 13

VI Disposal of ILW and LLW by UK Nirex Ltd 13

VII Disposal of LLW to Landfill Sites 16

VIII Radioactive Waste Management in Other Countries 17

IX Further Reading 21

Research Paper 96/30

I Introduction

On 19 May 19941 the Secretary of State for the Environment, John Gummer, announced theterms of reference of the radioactive waste management review:

In parallel with the nuclear review, details of which were announced todayby my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, my Department will be headinga separate but complementary review of radioactive waste managementpolicy.

The radioactive waste management review will examine current policy in thelight of changes which have taken place since the Department published itsnational strategy in 19842. It will range wider than the nuclear industry-covering radioactive waste management as a whole. It will not address thesuitability of specific sites, this being a matter for the planning andregulatory process, or the merits of the operations of existing nuclear powerstations or those in the pipeline.

The Department proposes to publish its preliminary conclusions later in thesummer, as a basis for consultation.

Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will also be issuing for consultationa revision of the Department's 1994 publication "Disposal facilities on landfor low and intermediate level Radioactive Wastes:principles for theprotection of the human environment".

In parallel with this latter exercise, the Radioactive Waste ManagementAdvisory Committee on Safety at Nuclear Installations will be asked toconsider the approach to site selection for disposal facilities and the criteriafor ensuring the protection of human health. Further details will beannounced later.

In the decade that has elapsed since the Department of the Environment published its nationalstrategy for the long-term management of radioactive waste3 a number of importantdevelopments have taken place. Two of these which made it particularly timely for thereview to be conducted were the Government's review of the nuclear industry4 and thecontinuing investigation into the disposal of intermediate and low level radioactive waste(ILW and LLW) in an underground repository at Sellafield by UK Nuclear IndustryRadioactive Waste Management Executive (Nirex) Ltd. Her Majesty's Inspectorate ofPollution's (HMIP) consultation on disposal facilities mentioned in the penultimate paragraphand the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's (RWMAC) approach todisposal site selection mentioned in the last paragraph of the announcement both pertain tothe activities of Nirex.

1HC Deb 19 May 1994 c 535-6W2Radioactive Waste Management: the National Strategy, Dept of the Environment, July 19843 ibid4 HC Deb 19 May 1994 c 543-4W

7

Research Paper 96/30

The outcome and conclusions of the radioactive waste review have direct implications for theproposal to privatise the majority of the nuclear industry, in particular the costs ofdecommissioning nuclear power stations at the end of their production lives, the reprocessingof spent nuclear fuel and the disposal of radioactive waste produced by the stations bothwhilst operating and upon decommissioning.

These issues led to the Government modifying its policy twice during its attempt to privatisethe electricity industry in its entirety in 1989. Initially it withdrew the older Magnox stationsand their liabilities from the sale5:

"As a result of our preparations for privatisation, it has recently becomeclear that the cost of reprocessing and waste treatment of spent Magnoxnuclear fuel will be a great deal higher than has been charged in electricityprices and provided for in the accounts of the Central Electricity GeneratingBoard and the South of Scotland Electricity Board. The Magnox stationsare drawing to the end of their lives. One is already closed, and most of theothers are due to close within the next few years. Most of these coststherefore relate to the past, to electricity already generated and paid for.Future customers will be bearing the full cost of the electricity theyconsume. It would not be right to burden them also with costs arising fromthe past.....

.....It has been decided that both the assets and the liabilities relating to theMagnox stations belonging to the CEGB and the SSEB should remain underGovernment control."

Subsequently the more modern Advanced Gas Cooled Reactors (AGRs) and the UK's onlyPressurised Water Reactor (PWR), under construction at Sizewell B in Suffolk, werewithdrawn6.

The Government's current position following the White Paper7 on the nuclear industry is toprivatise the AGR and PWR stations together with their liabilities while the older Magnoxstations with their liabilities remain in the public sector. These issues have been dealt within two Library Research papers: The Nuclear Review (RP 94/31) and Nuclear Privatisation(RP 96/3).

During the course of the radioactive waste management review the Government issued itspreliminary findings as a consultation document8 and its final deliberations as a White Paper9.Some topical issues from these will be outlined where appropriate in the remainder of thispaper.

5HC Deb 24 July 1989 c7466 HC Deb 9 Nov 1989 c1171-797 The Prospects for Nuclear Power in the UK Cm 2860, May 19958 Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy Preliminary Conclusions. A Consultative Document,Department of the Environment, August 1994.9 Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy. Final Conclusions Cm 2919, July 1995.

8

Research Paper 96/30

II Radioactivity

Before considering radioactive waste it is instructive to consider briefly different types ofradioactivity and the measurement of their activity.

A. Alpha, Beta and Gamma Rays

In this context there are three main types of radiation of concern, known as alpha (α), beta(β) and gamma (γ) rays. These are termed ionising radiation because they cause positivelyand negatively charged atoms or molecules, called ions, in the material through which theypass. It is this ionisation which causes damage to biological tissue which is exposed to suchradiation.

Alpha (α) particles consist of two protons and two neutrons which is the form of the heliumnucleus10. These particles penetrate only a short distance, typically a few centimetres in air,and are stopped by a sheet of plastic. They deposit all of their energy over this short distancecausing greater damage than more penetrating radiation of similar energy. Consequently αemitters are particularly damaging if inhaled or ingested.

Beta (β) particles are electrons11 emitted from a nucleus which has an unstable configuration.These typically travel further than α particles but are stopped within a few millimetres of skin.They are less densely ionising than α particles and therefore less biologically damaging.

Gamma (γ)rays are electromagnetic rays, like light, and can be considered as non-particulatein nature. They are very penetrating, typically requiring a metre of concrete or water to stopthem. They interact with matter along their track causing ionisation but because of their greatrange can pass right through the human body depositing very little of their energy along theway.

B. Radioactive decay

An unstable nucleus (radionuclide) is transformed into a more stable state by the emission ofradiation in a process called radioactive decay. The half-life is the time taken for half of anygiven amount of a radionuclide to decay. Each radionuclide has a characteristic half-lifewhich is unalterable. Examples of interest in the nuclear industry are:

10 A helium nucleus is the heavy central part of the helium atom11 Electrons are elementary particles which are constituents of atoms

9

Research Paper 96/30

Radionuclide Half-life

iodine-131 8 days

plutonium-239 24,000 years

uranium-238 4, 470 million years

C. Units of Measurement

The unit of radioactivity is the becquerel (Bq). On Bq is one emission per second. The rateof emission is often very much greater than this so that measurements are frequently quotedin kilobecquerels (KBq=1000=103Bq), gigabecquerels (GBq=109Bq) or terabecquerels(TBq=1012Bq).

Activity is not an indication of biological effect. As already mentioned some forms ofradiation are more densely ionising than others. In addition there is variation in the body'suptake of particular radionuclides and their subsequent concentration in different parts of it.Also different tissues in the body vary in their susceptibility to radiation damage. Thepotential harm, or dose, is measured in units called sieverts (Sv). A thousandth of a Sv ormillisievert (mSv) is a commonly encountered quantity.

III Waste Cat egories

In the UK radioactive waste is classified into four broad categories depending upon its heat-generating capacity and radioactivity.

A . High Level Waste (HLW) is waste in which significant amounts of heat are generatedas a result of its radioactivity. It is also known as heat generating waste. The hightemperature has to be taken into account in designing storage and disposal facilities.Essentially HLW consists of the fission products of uranium and plutonium from spent fuelrods in the nitric acid in which they are dissolved during reprocessing. This type of wasteaccounts for 95% of the total radioactivity produced by the nuclear industry, although it isonly a small fraction of the total volume. In the last 30 years the nuclear industry hasproduced a volume of HLW less than that of four double-decker buses. Reprocessing onetonne of spent nuclear fuel produces 0.1 cubic metres of HLW which contains approximately99% of the radioactivity in the spent fuel. The HLW in liquid form is concentrated byevaporation and stored inside double-walled stainless steel tanks inside thick concreteshielding walls. To dissipate heat, cooling coils operate within the tanks. There are severalsets of these in case one fails. Such tanks have been used safely for more than 30 years but,to make the waste easier and safer to store, a vitrification plant has been built at Sellafield

10

Research Paper 96/30

which turns the waste into dense solid glass blocks of its liquid volume. Vitrified wastemay be stored before final disposal. Government policy12 is that this type of waste shouldbe stored for at least 50 years to allow it to cool. This is considered to be the mostappropriate technical means for dealing with it and the strategy which best meets theGovernment's responsibility to future generations. The every-day management of HLW is theresponsibility of British Nuclear Fuels plc and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority(UKAEA).

B. Intermediate-Level Waste (ILW) is waste in which insufficient heat is generated forthis to be a design requirement in storage or disposal facilities, but with activity levels abovethat defined as the upper limit for low-level waste (LLW) (see below). This comprises mainlycladding from spent fuel rods, and structures from the core of decommissioned reactors whichare contaminated with radioactivity. It also includes sludges arising from fuel reprocessingand plutonium contaminated materials. In volume terms the amount of ILW producedannually is about 10% of the LLW. Reprocessing 1 tonne of spent nuclear fuel produces 1cubic metre of ILW which contains about 1% of the spent fuel activity. At Sellafield thereis a plant which seals this waste in cement within steel drums. This is then placed into aconcrete store above ground, but is destined for final disposal in a suitable repository, oncebuilt (see later). The majority of ILW comes from the operation of the nuclear industry withother industries, hospitals, the Ministry of Defence and laboratories producing smallerquantities. ILW is currently stored at nuclear sites around the country awaiting theconstruction of a deep level radioactive waste repository. Responsibility for the disposal ofILW (and some LLW) lies with Nirex.

C. Low Level Waste (LLW) is waste which contains radioactive materials above the verylow level waste (VLLW) acceptable for disposal with ordinary refuse, but below 4GBq pertonne of α or 12GBq/tonne of β/γ activity. Such waste is diverse and includes paper towels,protective clothing and laboratory equipment from areas where radioactive materials arehandled, and chemical sludges from the treatment of low level liquid. Between 25,000 and40,000 cubic metres of LLW are produced in Britain annually13. Reprocessing one tonne ofspent fuel produces 4 cubic metres of LLW and contains 0.001% of its activity. The mainsource of this waste is the nuclear industry although significant quantities come fromhospitals, other industries and research establishments. Under existing authorizations LLWcan be accepted for disposal at BNFL's facility at Drigg in Cumbria or UKAEA's at Dounreayin Caithness.

D. Very Low-Level wastes (VLLW) can be safely disposed of with ordinary refuse. Each0.1 cubic metre must contain less than 400 kBq of β/γ activity or single items must containless than 40 kBq of β/γ activity.

12 HC Deb 1 February 1994 c 624W13 Facts on Nirex UK Nirex Ltd 1993

11

Research Paper 96/30

IV. Reclassification of Waste

The Government is currently considering the present categorisation of radioactive waste. Inthe consultation document14 published during the review, it was pointed out that the purposeof the present classification is to provide a simple system to enable the layman to understandthe levels of radioactivity present in wastes. It takes no account of other factors pertainingto radiological hazard such as the half-lives of the radionuclides, their decay products whichmay in turn be radioactive (decay daughters), the radiotoxicity or the physical and chemicalform. As examples it is possible to distinguish between long-lived and short-lived ILW andbetween LLW with a relatively high or low α content. Experience suggests that the currentmethod of categorisation does not always lead to the most cost-effective management of wasteby the nuclear industry. Improved characterisation of wastes could make management anddisposal easier and less expensive without leading to a detriment to safety. It was suggestedin the consultation document that short lived ILW might be disposed of at Drigg so long asthe overall safety case for the site is not jeopardised.

Responses to the consultation document reported in the White Paper15 published at the endof the review were generally in favour of a redefinition of the waste classification to takeaccount of half-lives and activity. This might make it easier to identify suitable disposalroutes and be a useful move towards standardisation of waste categories within the EU. Manyrespondents were concerned that there should be no erosion of existing safety standards as aresult of a reclassification. Indeed, this is exactly the sort of issue which, rightly or not, thegeneral public and pressure groups alight upon as a covert method for the Government toreduce safety standards.

The Government is giving further consideration to refining the classification of waste in thelight of research and advice from the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee(RWMAC). It is also considering the proposal to allow the disposal of short-lived ILW atDrigg.

V. Government Policy for High Level Waste

In the context of all categories of radioactive waste it is important to distinguish between theterms storage and disposal. Storage is a temporary measure frequently used while awaitingdisposal. Disposal is the emplacement of waste in a facility without any intention ofretrieving it.

14 Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy:Preliminary Conclusion.A consultation documentDepartment of the Environment, August 1994.15Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy.Final Conclusions. Cm 2919, July 1995

12

Research Paper 96/30

In the White Paper16 the Government reaffirmed its policy that HLW in vitrified form shouldbe stored for at least 50 years to allow short-lived radionuclides to decay and heat generationto reduce. It also amplified its policy by stating its favoured final option as disposal ofvitrified HLW to geological formations on land at the end of 50 years. The same optionwould be suitable to dispose of unprocessed spent fuel since the technical issues are similar.The only exception is that the design of the repository would have to take account of thepossibility of criticality in the case of spent fuel. This is the establishment of a nuclear chainreaction17 resulting from a critical mass of uranium or plutonium being exceeded in a givenvolume.

The Government intends to re-initiate a research programme of geological studies into thedisposal of HLW deep underground. The initial programme was discontinued in 1981. Aspart of this the safety issues will be fully addressed with a view to gaining public confidence.A national strategy of future intent will be announced and updated periodically. Itsimplementation will be in accordance with the polluter pays principle and liability will fallon the owners of the waste. Strategy will draw on international and national researchincluding the results of research into the ILW repository proposed by Nirex (see later).

A. Reprocessing Spent Fuel From Foreign Utilities

In the White Paper18 the Government reiterated its policy that waste resulting fromreprocessing foreign spent nuclear fuel should be returned to its country of origin. Since 1976contracts have contained options to this effect and the Government intends to exercise them.In particular that HLW should be returned as soon as possible after vitrification. It acceptsthe policy of waste substitution whereby a smaller quantity of HLW is returned in place oflarger quantities of LLW with a broadly neutral radiological outcome. It does not, however,intend to become irrevocably committed to waste substitution since appropriate disposaloptions for some levels of waste are not yet available in the UK. In agreeing equivalencebetween categories of waste it intends that some additional HLW should be returned abovethat calculated on purely radiological grounds to take account of non-radiologicalenvironmental consequences of substitution.

VI Disposal of ILW and LLW by UK Nirex Ltd

UK Nirex Ltd was established by the nuclear industry in 1982. Its responsibility is to developdisposal routes for ILW and relatively hazardous LLW which are α-emitters of long half-life.

16 Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy. Final Conclusions.Cm 2919, July 199517 A nuclear chain reaction is self-sustaining as a result of the production and capture of neutrons. The captureof a neutron by, for example, a uranium-235 nucleus leads to it splitting (fission) and producing several neutronsin addition. These initiate further fissions.18Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy. Final Conclusions.Cm 2919, July 1995

13

Research Paper 96/30

Nirex is an acronym for "Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive". It is funded byorganisations which will make use of its facilities. These are British Nuclear Fuels plc(BNFL), Nuclear Electric plc, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA),Scottish Nuclear Ltd and the Ministry of Defence (MOD). Ordinary shares in Nirex are heldby all except the MOD which makes a financial contribution. The Secretary of State forTrade and Industry holds a Special Share. Under the terms of a Shareholders' Agreement, theOrdinary Shareholders finance Nirex's activities in proportion to the volumes of waste whichthey expect to dispose of (BNFL 42.5%, Nuclear Electric 42.5%, UKAEA 7.5% and ScottishNuclear 7.5%). Under the terms of the Nuclear Review White Paper19 the new privatisedcompanies will be incorporated into the existing structure of Nirex with appropriateshareholdings. They "will be able to exert a substantial commercial influence" on the affairsof the company.

After numerous deliberations since its inception Nirex is currently working to provide andmanage a deep underground repository for the disposal of ILW and some LLW at LonglandsFarm, near Sellafield in Cumbria. The cost of bringing the repository into operation isestimated at £1.9 billion at 1995 prices20. In the White Paper the estimate of the earliest datethat a repository could be ready to receive waste is 2010.

Nirex decided to concentrate its attentions on a deep underground site for its repository nearSellafield in July 1991. In addition to a test-drilling programme involving a series ofboreholes, Nirex proposes to excavate a Rock Characterisation Facility (RCF) or "rocklaboratory". This is planned at a depth of 650m and is designed to help develop the safetycase for the repository. The RCF comprises a series of shafts and tunnels in which data willbe collected about the nature of the rocks and any groundwater flow. The former is ofconcern because the structure must be stable and preferably of a composition, such as clay,that will retain radioactivity. The latter is important as it is the route by which anyradioactivity leaked from stored waste could eventually enter the drinking water supply. Datafrom the boreholes and RCF will provide, with the assistance of mathematical models, aprediction of how any leached radioactivity would move over time. In a satisfactoryrepository this should not occur in the surrounding rocks until tens of thousands of years havepassed21,22.

A planning application from the RCF was submitted to Cumbria County Council on 1 August1994 and refused on 20th December 1994. On 27th February 1995 the EnvironmentSecretary, John Gummer, announced23 that a planning appeal by Nirex for the RCF would beconsidered commencing in September 1995. This took place and closed on 1 February 1996.The inspector hopes to make a recommendation24 to the Environment Secretary by October.

19Prospects for Nuclear Power in the UK Cm 2960, May 1995.20 ibid21 Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy. Final Conclusions.Cm 2919, July 199522 Managing Radioactive Wastes in the European Community, Commission of the European Communities 199323Department of the Environment News Release No 93 24 Guardian 2 February 1996

14

Research Paper 96/30

During the appeal it was reported25 that there was fierce opposition from 25 organisationsincluding local councils, environmental groups, the National Park and the Irish Government.Major environmental groups, for example Greenpeace, also opposed the whole project26:

"Greenpeace opposes the project because it is impossible to quantify the risksof contamination and health detriment from underground disposal with anyaccuracy. Fundamental uncertainties are not, and cannot be, quantified onNirex's computer modelling of such a complex system of chemical, physicaland geological containment. The task facing Nirex is to show that the risk offatal cancer to an individual from radioactivity seeping from the dump will beno more than one in a million per year. This is impossible to achieve with anyconfidence."

The RCF appeal is separate from that for the repository itself. The Government has alreadypromised to hold a full public inquiry into an application for the repository27.

In the White Paper28 the Government reiterated its commitment to a policy of disposal ratherthan long-term storage for ILW and stated that Nirex should continue with its siteinvestigation programme. It recognised that the final decision on the repository itself dependsupon the establishment of a sound scientific case, compliance with regulatory requirements,planning consent and costs. Because of these difficulties no fixed deadline will be imposedby the Government. When the consultation document29 was published it was thought that adelay of 50 years in building the repository would lead to a £100m benefit. In the light ofmore recent information, that has been shown not to be so and it was stated in the WhitePaper30 that there was no economic case for delay. Government policy is now that once asuitable site has been found a repository should be constructed as soon as reasonablypracticable. The precise timing will depend on planning consent, regulatory requirements andthe safety case as mentioned above. Since the earliest date envisaged for a repository toreceive waste is 2010 interim storage of wastes will be necessary for some time. As a resultof this the presumption in the 1984 National Strategy31 against the conditioning of storedwaste needs to be modified. This policy was adopted so that waste treatment could bedesigned with the requirements of the repository in mind once those were known.Accordingly, in the White Paper32, the Government relaxed its policy against conditioning ortreatment and now believes that where safety may be compromised wastes may be treated toimprove storage conditions. In addition if there is a worthwhile economic benefit, treatmentmay be carried out as long as it does not compromise safety.

25 Press Association 2 February 1996 Nuclear Dumping Inquiries closes on 'Victory' Note26 Energy Utilities January 199527 Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy. Final Conclusions. Cm 2919, July 199528 ibid29 Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy:Preliminary Conclusion.A consultation documentDepartment of the Environment, August 1994.30Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy. Final Conclusions. Cm 2919, July 199531 Radioactive Waste Management:The National Strategy Department of the Environment, July 198432Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy. Final Conclusions. Cm 2919, July 1995

15

Research Paper 96/30

VII Disposal of LLW to Landfill Sites (controlled burial)

Currently some LLW may be disposed of by burial at suitable landfill sites underauthorizations issued under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. The method is also knownas controlled burial . It is restricted to sites where there are good containment characteristicsfor example those based on several metres of clay and where the hydrogeological performanceof the site has proved satisfactory. The sites may be operated by local authorities or privateoperators. They are used by non-nuclear industries which dispose of material containingnatural radioactivity, and by hospitals and universities for their relatively more active wastestreams. Few nuclear sites use controlled burial. Exceptions are the BNFL sites atCapenhurst and Springfields which use a site operated by Lancashire Waste Services. Inaddition BNFL operates a site at Sellafield for disposal of lightly contaminated excavationsoil. In all there are 27 such sites in England and 12 in Scotland.

In the consultation document33 it was proposed that greater use should be made of this methodof disposal to relieve pressure on BNFL's LLW disposal facility at Drigg. There are soundradiological and economic reasons for greater use of controlled burial. The proposal was alsosupported by the RWMAC and by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB).There was, however, opposition from environmental group, local authorities and members ofthe public.

In the light of this the Government has decided in the White Paper34 not to encourage greateruse of controlled burial but that it should continue to be used as a disposal route subject tothe necessary regulatory requirements and the agreement of site operators. The Governmentwill issue guidance to the environment agencies about the need to consult local authoritieswith respect to authorizations for controlled burial.

33 Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy Preliminary Conclusions. A consultation document Deptof the Environment, August 199434 Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy. Final Conclusions. Cm 2919, July 1995

16

Research Paper 96/30

VIII Radi oactive Waste Management in Other Countries

Most countries with a nuclear power programme have an established disposal policy forradioactive waste. An overview of these was published as Annex D in the Governmentconsultation document35 and is reproduced here for comparisons with UK policy.

Summary

The following paragraphs outline the position on disposal of radioactive waste in mostof the world's substantial nuclear electricity producers. Almost all favour, and aretaking steps to secure, disposal of waste and, where a once through nuclear fuel cyclehas been chosen, spent fuel. LLW and ILW is, or is planned to be, disposed of in amix of near-surface and deep facilities. Plans for disposal of HLW and spent fuelfocus on deep geological disposal.

Belgium

A large number of sites have been identified with potential for the development ofnear-surface or deep repositories, primarily in clay deposits. A small number of theseare expected to be selected for further, more detailed, investigation. Near-surfacedisposal is preferred for LLW and deep disposal is preferred for highly active andlong-lived wastes. An initial decision on the selected site is expected in 1997, leadingto an operational near-surface disposal facility in the early part of the next century.

A deep underground laboratory has been in operation at Mol since 1983, with theobjective of developing a preliminary safety analysis of deep disposal towards the endof this decade. However, construction of a definitive deep disposal facility is notexpected until well into the next century.

Canada

A near-surface disposal facility for LLW and short-lived ILW is currently underconstruction at Chalk River.

Deep geological disposal is the preferred solution for spent fuel. An UndergroundResearch Laboratory was established at Laq du Bonnet in 1986 to assess the effectsof construction techniques and perform long-term safety experiments. This willprovide the geological characterisation methodology for the eventual candidate site,which is expected to come into operation in the second quarter of the next century.

35 Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy Preliminary Conclusions. A consultation document, Deptof the Environment, August 1994

17

Research Paper 96/30

Finland

A deep repository for operational LLW and ILW from the Olkilouto power stationcame into operation in 1992. A similar repository for the Loviisa power station isunder construction, and is due to open in 1996.

A separate deep disposal facility is proposed for spent fuel. A final choice from thethree sites currently under investigation is expected around 2000. This will befollowed by a period of further investigation, leading to an operational repository some20 years later.

France

Near-surface disposal of short-lived LLW and ILW was carried out at Centre de laManche from 1969 until the site was full in 1992. A similar disposal facilitycommenced operation at Centre de 1'Aube in 1992.

Preliminary investigations for a deep repository for high level and other long-livedwastes were started in 1987, but halted in 1991. In accordance with legislationadopted in 1991, several underground laboratories will now be constructed in differenthost media, with a view to taking a decision on the location of a deep repository by2007 on the basis of an assessment of their performance.

Germany

LLW and low alpha content ILW is currently disposed of in an abandoned salt mineat Morsleben. This facility has an operational licence until 2000. Investigations atthe abandoned iron ore mine at Konrad have demonstrated its potential as a deeprepository for LLW and ILW, but licensing is stalled by legal procedures.

An intensive R&D programme on disposal of ILW, HLW and spent fuel has beenunderway at the Asse salt mine since the late 1960s. This programme is being usedto support investigations for deep disposal of similar wastes at Gorleben, where adetailed repository design should be completed towards the end of the decade.

Japan

Low-level waste is currently being disposed of in near-surface facilities at Rokkasho-mura.

Japanese policy on geological disposal of HLW will be pursued through developmentof a rock laboratory at Honorobe, leading to eventual decisions on a suitable site anddevelopment of a repository around the middle of the next century.

18

Research Paper 96/30

Netherlands

Policy in the Netherlands is for long-term interim storage of all categories of waste.However, a generic research programme on final disposal options in salt is still goingon.

Spain

LLW and ILW will be disposed of in a near-surface facility at El Cabril.

A programme to identify potential deep repository sites for HLW and spent fuel hasbeen under way since 1986. A choice is expected to be made around the turn of thecentury, leading to an operational repository around 2020.

Sweden

A repository for LLW and ILW has been in operation at Forsmark since 1988.

Test drillings have been carried out at a number of sites as part of the selectionprocess for a site for development of a deep repository for HLW and spent fuel.Decisions, expected around the turn of the century, will be assisted by experiencegained in development and operation of the Aspo Hard Rock Laboratory and the nowcompleted international project at Stripa.

Switzerland

Geological disposal of radioactive waste is a specific requirement of Swiss law.Investigations for a repository for short-lived wastes accessed by a horizontal tunnelwere undertaken at four sites prior to selection of Wellenberg as the preferred site withan expected operational date early in the next century.

For HLW and long-lived ILW a much deeper repository is planned, and, the earlystages of a site selection procedure are under way.

United States

Near-surface disposal facilities for LLW are in operation at Barnwell, South Carolinaand Richland, Washington.

For their unique category of "transuranic waste" a waste Isolation Pilot Plant has beenconstructed in a deep salt formation at Carlsbad in New Mexico. Emplacementoperations are expected to commence around the turn of the century.

In the USA, spent fuel is classified as HLW. Proposals for HLW are centred ongeological disposal which, since 1987 has been concentrated on the Yucca Mountain

19

Research Paper 96/30

site in Nevada. If the site is found suitable, emplacement is expected to begin around2010.

Other countries

Italy has no plans at present for disposal of waste. Waste is generally stored at thesite on which it arises.

Bulgaria has a shallow land burial site for institutional radioactive wastes, but has noprovision for disposal of reactor wastes or spent fuel.

In the Czech Republic, institutional radioactive wastes are disposed of by shallow landburial. Reactor wastes and spent fuel are stored at Dukovany.

In Hungary, a disposal site for institutional LLW is in operation at Puspokszilagy, anda new central repository for reactor LLW and ILW came into operation in 1992.

Romania has a repository at Baita for LLW and ILW from non-nuclear power sources.It is proposed that LLW and ILW arising from the yet to be completed Cernavodaplant will be disposed of initially in a closed uranium mine at Baita.

In the Slovak Republic a near surface repository for LLW was built in 1993 atMochovce and preliminary geological studies have been carried out to provide a basisfor selection of a repository for spent fuel.

20

Research Paper 96/30

IX Further Reading

UK Radioactive Waste Policy: Not a legacy to stand on. Greenpeace, December 1994

Earthquake: How Nirex is ignoring international safety guidelines on the siting of a nuclearwaste dump. Greenpeace, November 1994.

Review of radioactive waste management issues: the RWMACs Forward Look. RadioactiveWaste Management Advisory Committee, April 1995.

Disposal of Radioactive Wastes in Deep Repositories. The Royal Society, November 1994.

Nirex Deep Waste Repository Project. Scientific Update 1993, Nirex Report no 525, UK NirexLtd, December 1993.

Rock Characterisation Facility, Longlands Farm, Gosforth, Cumbria: A summary ofenvironmental effects, Nirex July 1994

Special Issue: The Nirex Repository; Nuclear Energy, Vol 33 No 1, February 1994.

Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy Preliminary Conclusions. A ConsultativeDocument, Department of the Environment, August 1994.

Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy Final Conclusions, Cm 2919, July 1995.

21