General policies, plans & funding Low & intermediate waste treatment Low & intermediate waste disposal Transuranic waste disposal (also known as plutonium-contaminated waste) Spent fuel & high level waste interim storage Spent fuel & high level waste disposal Research Transportation Clean up

2.1.1 Bulgaria: Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant (KNPP) must present a clear long-term programme for nuclear waste and spent fuel management before it can receive authorisation to send spent fuel to Russia, the new head of Bulgaria's State Agency for Energy & Energy Resources announced September 2001. KNPP's reprocessing contract with Russia's Ministry of Atomic Energy (Minatom) requires Bulgaria to take back the final waste and terms of the new contract are said to be unclear. (See also section 4.1 Bulgaria)

2.1.2 Canada: On April 25 2001, Ralph Goodale, Minister of Natural Resources (NRCan) introduced legislation for the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste. An Act Respecting the Long-Term Management of Nuclear Fuel Waste was developed following extensive consultations with the public; provincial governments; waste owners and other interested parties and is a key part of the Government's strategy on nuclear fuel waste management. February 26 2002 saw the passing of the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act by the Canadian House of Commons. The Act provides for the nuclear utilities to set up a non-profit Waste Management Organisation (WMO) to propose (within three years) and later implement disposal strategies. It also provides for the utilities plus AECL to establish trust funds to finance the management and disposal of the wastes. After considering options put forward by the WMO the government will be able to make a decision for the WMO to implement without resort to a full Environment Assessment Panel.

2.1.3 France: In July 2001, ANDRA signed a four-year contract with the French government defining a 'global approach' to waste management. The agreement formalises ANDRA's responsibility for the long-term management of all French radioactive waste and calls for the creation of a repository for very low-level waste by late 2003, the building of underground research laboratories for continued research into the feasibility of permanent geological disposal of HLW and a study into the disposal of radium-bearing and graphite waste (http://www.andra.fr/). In 2002, as part of this agreement, the government with ANDRA will launch a comprehensive list of radioactive wastes that arise in France, which will serve to increase the levels of transparency between the nuclear industry and the public.

2.1.4 Japan: In October 2000, Japan established the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NUMO) to implement geologic disposal in the country. Japan hopes to begin site selection and characterization, followed by infrastructure creation and site licensing. Construction of a repository in granite or sedimentary rock is planned for the 2030s. The funding of NUMO will be controlled by the reorganised Radioactive Waste Management Funding and Research Centre. (See the NUMO website for more details)

2.1.5 Russia: The Supreme Court has overturned a 1998 governmental decision that exempted Hungarian reprocessing waste from being returned to Hungary, February 2002. The court decision follows a 1998 agreement whereby Russia allowed Hungarian radioactive waste to remain within Russia after reprocessing. Hungary was granted permission to export spent nuclear fuel from the Paks nuclear power plant to Russia by the Russian ministry of atomic energy (Minatom) in 1997.

2.1.6 South Korea: September 2001, a community willing to host the country's first low- and intermediate-level waste (LILW) repository has not been found by Korea Electric Power Corp (KEPCO), despite offering to pay US$250 million in compensation to a host municipality. This was despite the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy's (MOCIE) provision of an extension of the applications period to the end of June 2001. According to the official site selection plan, site selection and public consultation is expected by 2003 and purchasing of the land by 2005. The new plan for radioactive waste that was proposed by MOCIE and approved by the Atomic Energy Commission in September 1998, states that a LILW repository will be constructed by 2008 and spent fuel will be stored on site at the nuclear power plants until interim storage facilities are constructed by 2016. However, Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co's (KHNP's) reactor sites are now expecting to be allowed to store their waste on-site for longer than previously anticipated.

2.1.7 Switzerland: A new centralised nuclear waste management fund, created by executive order in 2000, is now in place and initial contributions have been made. The fund will accumulate the funds projected necessary for final waste management after shutdown of Switzerland's five nuclear power reactors. The country has a separate fund to cover decommissioning costs. A commission including nuclear industry, federal representatives and independent experts, established by the Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communication (UVEK), manages the fund.

The federal state government proposal for a revision to the federal atomic law was submitted to parliament at the end of February 2001. Amongst other proposals, the revision calls for a ban on spent fuel reprocessing.

2.1.8 UK: The Environment Agency published on 30 July 2001 a consultation package on proposals for improving the future regulation of the disposal of radioactive waste at BNFL's Sellafield plant under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, and sought comments from all interested parties on its proposals. The deadline for comment was 3 December 2001. The proposals include:

• introduction of a new integrated certificate of authorization (replacing the six current authorizations) with stringent new requirements for managing radioactive wastes;
• reduction in 22 radionuclide discharge limits applying to liquid and aerial discharges from the site;
• additional discharge limits for three radionuclides;
• new controls on discharges from individual plants on the site;
• requirements to provide information and make improvements to management of and disposal of radioactive wastes.

The Agency's proposals will help to implement the UK's OSPAR (Oslo and Paris Convention) commitments to reduce radioactive discharges to the marine environment.

In August 2001 the Environment Agency published its recommendations and proposed decisions on BNFL's applications to dispose of radioactive waste from eight Magnox nuclear power stations in England and Wales and the research and technology facility at Berkeley Centre. This followed a major public consultation carried out by the Agency.

The document includes:

• Recommendations to Government on the justification of continued operation/decommissioning (as appropriate) of the power stations and Berkeley Centre; In each case the Agency has concluded that current operations are justified:
  
  
• Authorisations which the Agency proposes to issue to BNFL:
  
  
  • resulting in a significant improvement in regulatory control with the introduction of a single integrated authorisation for each site which includes new conditions on management competence and supervision,
    
    
  • reducing forty-five out of fifty-eight existing limits on discharges, leaving eleven as at present and increasing two,
    
    
  • contributing to the implementation of Government policy on the disposal of radioactive waste, and
    
    
  • setting out improvement programmes requiring BNFL to explore the scope for future reductions in discharges.

The UK Government has published several reports relating to future Waste Management policy. The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC), the government's independent advisory body, issued a report, "Advice to Ministers on the Radioactive Waste Implications of Reprocessing", 14 November 2000. The report considers BNFL's Magnox and THORP reprocessing plans and suggests a number of potentially important issues that BNFL might consider to be key indicators of their future performance. These include:

• progress with Magnox reprocessing so as to allow closure of the magnox reprocessing plant by around 2012;
• progress towards the achievement of passive safe storage of radioactive materials (assuming a suitable operational definition can be agreed with the regulator);
• progress with the reduction of Highly Active Liquor (HAL) stocks;
• progress with the return of products from overseas reprocessing;
• progress with reducing discharges so as to meet the UK's OSPAR objectives (including identification of needs and progress towards development of any necessary abatement technology);
• explanation as to how any new THORP contracts will be allowed for in this overall picture (given, for example, that it could place additional pressure on vitrification lines and add or extend discharges).

The RWAC report can be viewed here.

In September 2001, UK government also launched a nationwide consultation on radioactive waste with the publication of the DEFRA report, "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely- Proposals for developing a policy for managing solid radioactive waste in the UK ", in order to canvass options for management of intermediate- and high-level wastes including organisational aspects. Around 10,000 tonnes of waste are currently in store and this will increase as existing plants come to the end of their lives and are decommissioned. Comments were also invited on whether any or all of the country's separated plutonium and uranium should be regarded as wastes and therefore included in the management strategy. The program starts with a 6-month consultation period leading to research and public debate to examine and recommend options, followed by further consultation seeking public views of the proposed option in 2005 and announcement of the chosen option in 2006. Legislation is envisaged in 2007 if needed.

The DEFRA report can be viewed here.

Following the government's publication of the document 'Managing Radioactive Waste Safely' and the continuing consultation, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons has inquired into the UK's radioactive waste policy (February 2002).

The committee reported that successive attempts to reach a decision about what to do with the UK's radioactive waste have failed. In September 2001, the Government published a consultation document which marks the beginning of a process intended to lead to lead to a publicly-acceptable solution. The committee raised matters of concern, including the low public profile of the document and of the consultation process itself, and the length of the policy making process, which is due to continue until 2007. They recommended: that the Government ensure that the consultation process is conducted methodically and transparently, in a way which encourages public participation; that it should set up an independent body to oversee the process; and that the objectives for each of the remaining stages of the policy development process should be made clear. They make it clear that it is incumbent on those on all sides of the debate to take part in the dialogue envisaged by the consultation document and particularly urges the Government to prepare ways to address concerns which will inevitably arise when possible sites for disposal are made public towards the end of the policy-making process.

The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology also published a short report, "Managing Radioactive Waste: the Government's consultation" November 2001 in response to the Government's consultation paper. The report highlights their concerns with the government's consultation paper and makes positive suggestions for generating and maintaining the long-term momentum required.

The House of Lords report can be viewed here.

A Liabilities Management Authority (LMA) will be established to take responsibility for most of the UK's public sector civil nuclear liabilities on behalf of the government, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Patricia Hewitt announced in November 2001. The LMA will be responsible for the Government's interest in the management of public sector civil nuclear liabilities. On behalf of the Government the LMA will take on responsibility for most of BNFL's liabilities and assets, including the THORP and Magnox reprocessing facilities and the Sellafield MOX Plant (SMP) as well as those of the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA). The LMA will work in partnership with site licensees, initially the UKAEA and BNFL, and the safety, security and environment regulators to achieve the most effective and safe means of discharging the liabilities. THORP and Magnox reprocessing facilities and the Sellafield MOX Plant (SMP) . A white paper will be published by the government in spring 2002 covering the proposals for the management of UK public sector civil nuclear liabilities.

2.1.9 Ukraine: In February 2002, a new nuclear protocol was signed with Russia on nuclear co-operation, and which includes the acceptance, by Russia of Ukrainian spent fuel.

2.1.10 US: The National Energy Policy, issued in May 2001 by the US National Energy Policy Development Group, supported the expansion of nuclear energy in the United States and stated that the federal government must provide for the safe disposal of nuclear waste and recommended that the best science is utilized to provide a deep geological repository for nuclear waste.

2.2.1 Canada: On October 6, 2000, following eight months of negotiations, the Government and the communities of Port Hope, Hope Township and Clarington signed principles of understanding for the clean-up, storage and long-term management for the region's low-level radioactive wastes (LLW) that were produced by the former federal Crown Corporation Eldorado Nuclear Limited at its Port Hope refinery in the 1930s. While roughly one million cubic meters of low-level radioactive wastes located in these three Ontario communities wastes are being managed safely in their current locations, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the Government and the local communities do not consider the present situation appropriate for the long term.

Each community has selected a slightly different solution for the long-term storage of the wastes, engineered to last for at least 500 years.

Port Hope and Hope Township proposals involve complete encapsulation of the LLW in specially engineered facilities that would fit into the contours of the existing sites. An installed liner would isolate the buried material from underlying soils and groundwater. Ultimately, the facility would be covered, landscaped and used for recreational purposes. Ongoing monitoring of the site would help demonstrate its safety.

Clarington selected in-situ management of the wastes by proposing the construction of a groundwater interceptor trench around the Port Granby waste facility and then capping the wastes with a multi-layer low-permeability cover. The Clarington facility would also undergo long-term monitoring and it too would be developed for recreational purposes.

The estimated cost for the three facilities is some $260 million (Canadian), which includes costs associated with environmental assessment, regulatory review, sites clean-up, remediation, waste transportation, facility construction, waste emplacement, facility closure and ongoing monitoring. Construction of the sites will take up to ten years and the resulting facilities will be managed by Natural Resources, Canada, through the low-level radioactive waste management office. (see also http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/inter/index.html)

2.2.2 France: The government has agreed to construct a disposal site for very low-level waste (VLLW) close to the ANDRA Soulaines site. The public consultation period began in 2001 and will continue in 2002. Construction is planned during 2003 and 2004. The site will have capacity for 30 years disposal. (see also http://www.andra.fr/)

2.2.3 Russia: A floating complex for processing liquid radioactive waste from nuclear-powered submarines was to be formally transferred from Japanese to Russian ownership on 22 November 2001. Russia has been operating the Landysh facility, built under an agreement between the government of Russia and Japan, for more than a year. Landysh - built at a cost of some US$35 million - has already processed about 800 cubic metres of waste during a test period and is expected to process 7000 cubic metres annually.

2.3.1 Australia: In January 2001, the federal government selected its preferred low level waste (LLW) repository site in the Woomera Prohibited Area in the north region of South Australia. The decision was based upon scientific surveys inspecting the geology of the region, transport access and prospects for long-term control and security. The site is now subject to a full environmental impact assessment (EIA), which will:

• examine all relevant aspects of the environment that may be affected by the repository;
• evaluate the significance of risks associated with it and two alternative sites in the area, and
• assess any potential impacts it may have on the environment.

Draft guidelines for the EIA were circulated through the community and public comment invited between 6 April and 23 May 2001. The comments received were considered by the Ministers and used to modify the Draft Guidelines as necessary to produce the Final Guidelines.

In July 2001, Australia's federal government released a discussion paper on the proposed method for finding a site for a national store for intermediate level waste (ILW). The proposed 'national store' would be a purpose-built, above ground store for the interim safe storage of ILW resulting from overseas processing of spent fuel from the HIFAR research reactor. It will be designed to operate for at least 50 years until a geological repository has been established.

2.3.2 Belgium: Following the decision in 1998 by the Belgium Federal Government to opt for a final, or potentially final solution for the long-term management of short, low-level radioactive waste, Ondraf/Niraf have been developing plans to enable the integration of the project proposals at the local level. Potential project sites for final disposal have been restricted to the four already existing nuclear sites in Belgium and other potentially interested local districts. The government is expected to select the site(s) for further investigations during 2002, following extensive consultations with all stakeholders.

2.3.3 Kazakhstan: July 2001: The government is considering importing and storing low-level waste in order to raise funds for the country's own radioactive waste management. Muhtar Dzhakishev, President of KazAtomProm told the national parliament that radwaste management needs far more than the US$1 million in the current budget. He said that US$20 million was needed for research to identify nuclear hazards in the country and to develop laws for their management. A further US$30 million is needed to maintain storage of high-level waste in the Mangyshlak nuclear complex. About US$700 million is needed to clean up the country's uranium mines. A change in Kazakh law would be needed in order to start importing.

2.3.4 Spain: In August 2001, the CSN approved the renewal of the operating licence for the El Cabril repository for low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste (LLW and ILW), operated by the national radioactive waste management company, ENRESA. The licence allows operation of the site until it reaches capacity, subject to regular safety reviews.

2.4.1US: The Department of Energy's (DOE), Waste Management Program: Treatment and Storage of Transuranic (TRU) Waste was revised December 2000. It is proposed that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico will have a capacity to characterize for disposal up to 1,250 cubic meters of contact-handled transuranic (CH-TRU) out of about 7,000 cubic meters expected to be received annually at WIPP. In addition, storage time of CH-TRU above ground will be increased from 60 days to one year, with total above-ground storage capacity increased by 25 percent, for a maximum storage capacity of 152 cubic meters. Implementation of these decisions is dependent on regulatory approval from the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED).

In July 2001, the DOE also decided to transfer approximately 300 cubic meters of CH-TRU waste from the Mound Plant in Ohio to the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina for storage, characterization, and repackaging prior to sending it to WIPP for disposal. Previously, the DOE had decided (with one exception) that each DOE site would prepare its own TRU waste for disposal and store it onsite until it is shipped to WIPP. Mound Plant is due to close and be converted into a commercial/industrial park.
(see also http://www.em.doe.gov/em30/tru.html)

2.5.1 Armenia: The first spent fuel canister from Armenia-2, the country's only operating unit at Metsamor nuclear power plant, was transferred from pool storage to the plant's new dry storage facility in August 2000. Framatome constructed the facility: their first order for a dry storage facility. (see also the 1999 report, section 4.2).

2.5.2 Belgium: The HLW storage building located in Mol-Dessel designed to store different types of radioactive waste resulting mainly from the reprocessing of spent fuel from Belgian nuclear power plants received the first vitrified high-level waste canisters in April 2000.

As a consequence of the decision of the Belgian Government to postpone reprocessing of most of the spent fuel, an additional interim storage capacity has been provided:

• On the Doel site, the spent fuel is stored in metallic dual-purpose casks (dry storage): by the end of 2001, 999 fuel assemblies had been placed in the dry storage unit.
  
  
• On the Tihange site, the spent fuel is stored in a pool very similar the existing pools: by the end of 2001, 815 fuel assemblies had been placed in the pool.

2.5.3 Canada: The high-level waste (HLW) storage plan for the Bruce Nuclear Power Development in Kincardine, Ontario can proceed it was reported in July 2001. This follows the federal appeal courts decision to reject an appeal to overturn a previous judgment against an environmental group that had sought to challenge the Environmental Assessment process. The facility will have capacity to store up to 700 000 bundles of spent fuel in above ground concrete silos.

2.5.4 Germany: In August 2001 the federal radiation protection agency (BfS) gave approval for an intermediate on-site storage facility for spent fuel from the Philippsburg nuclear power plant. The spent fuel will be contained in specially constructed Castor transport casks. Spent fuel from unit two may be stored in 12 canisters for a five-year period.

In the same month, utility E.On withdrew its application for an interim storage facility for spent fuel at its Stade nuclear power plant, BfS announced. The BfS said that as the plant was scheduled to shut down in 2003 and spent fuel would be sent to France for reprocessing, there was no need for an interim storage facility at the site.

In December 2001, BfS reported that it had completed its public review of applications to build interim storage facilities at all but two of the nuclear power units in Germany. This follows the agreement in June 2001 between government and German utilities on the creation of decentralized storage facilities. The facilities will store spent nuclear fuel on-site (or near site) until the establishment of a national repository around 2030.

2.5.5 Japan: In March 2001, Japan Nuclear Fuel (JNFL) put forward proposals to construct an additional facility to store vitrified HLW at the Rokkasho-mura site. JNFL said that the new facility is needed to take over from the existing waste storage center, which will be filled by the end of 2005. JNFL will proceed with the application through national government once consent has been received from the Aomori prefecture and Rokkasho-mura village officials.

2.5.6 Russia: The first reading of three draft bills to enable the import and storage of up to 20,000 tonnes of foreign spent fuel from commercial reactors over the next 10 years took place December 2000. The first bill involves amendments to the law on Environmental Protection. The second bill, introduces amendments and additions to the law on atomic energy use - which defines "temporary technological storage" and indicates that all SNF works will be subject to civil legal contracts. The final bill addresses the law on special ecological programmes for the rehabilitation of contaminated territories.

A second reading of the bill took place in April 2001 and in June 2001, the DUMA approved the three draft bills. The third hearing saw the bill to amend the law on Environmental Protection passed with a majority of 256: 126. 226 votes were necessary for the amendments to pass. The second bill was approved 250 to 125. The law on special ecological programmes for the rehabilitation of contaminated territories was passed 266 to 110.

On 11 July 2001, President Putin signed the three bills into law, enabling the import of spent fuel, which could earn Russia $20 billion. Minatom, the country's atomic energy ministry says that $7 billion of the revenue raised from the imports would directly go to clean-up operations of radioactively contaminated land.

Before the project can move forward, Russia will need to sign a peaceful nuclear co-operation agreement with the U.S., which has consent rights over an estimated 90% of the spent fuel that could be imported.

In September 2001, Deputy Atomic Energy Minister Valeriy Lebedev reported that a government commission had begun negotiations with a number of countries - including Taiwan and Switzerland - over the delivery of spent nuclear fuel to Russia.

In October 2001, Minatom gave approval for the proposed construction of a modern spent nuclear fuel storage facility in the Krasnoyarsk region of Russia. However, 'actual implementation' of the project is not expected until the first contracts for reprocessing of foreign spent fuel have been signed, probably in two to three years, officials said.

Also, in December 2001, atomic energy minister Alexander Rumyantsev highlighted the need for the construction of a new spent fuel storage facility in the European part of the country. Storage facilities for liquid and solid spent fuel in all of Russia's nuclear power plants are said to be 60-80% full. The current on-site storage reserve capacity is expected to satisfy current needs for a further five years.

2.5.7 Switzerland: The utility owned organization in Wurenlingen, ZWILAG, responsible for storage of all types of waste, including spent fuel and HLW, conditioning of specific ILW waste streams and for incineration of wastes, received final approval from the Swiss government for its operations in June 2001. The first shipment arrived at ZWILAG on 3 July 2001 and contained 97 BWR spent fuel assemblies from Leibstadt nuclear power plant.

2.5.8 Ukraine: In July 2001, the Municipal Council of Energodar (Zaporozhe region) agreed to the commissioning of a spent fuel storage facility at the Zaporozhe nuclear power plant. The storage facility was built last year with financial support from the US and will have a capacity of 380 dry casks, enough for all spent fuel generated by the six VVER-1000 reactors at Zaporozhe until closure. The first casks were delivered from Duke Engineering and Services in the US, but future casks are to be fabricated by Ukrainian enterprises. Storing the fuel at Zaporozhe will save an estimated $40 million, as it will negate transporting spent fuel to Russia for long-term management and storage. The first three containers of spent fuel were placed in the facility during August and September 2001.

A draft governmental decree approving a project to store spent nuclear fuel at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant site was approved July 2001. The construction will be the first part of the infrastructure necessary for the final shutdown of Chernobyl and the plan was developed under the grant agreement between the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the Ukrainian government and Chernobyl NPP. A consortium led by Framatome will build the facility. The contract includes:

• Design and construction of a facility that will be used to package 25 000 spent fuel elements. The packaging process will involve the separation of the fuel bundles and confining them in capsules, which are then inserted into stainless steel spent fuel storage capsules.
  
  
• Design and construction of reinforced concrete structures for dry storage of the 256 canisters.
  
  
• Construction of the packaging plant should be finished by 2004.
  

2.5.9 United States: A private industry initiative to find an interim storage for used fuel has been undertaken by Private Fuels Storage Limited (PFS). PFS is a consortium of eight US utilities created to build the interim storage facility on the Goshute Indian reservation in Utah. The NRC issued a draft Environmental Impact Statement and held public hearings on the project during 2000. Significant progress was made by PFS during 2001, although they were prevented from moving toward construction of the facility by the formal opposition of the State of Utah, who filed a number of lawsuits, as well as enacting new laws to prevent the project. Basically Utah has attempted to criminalize any activity that might lead to a spent fuel disposal site in the state. They have also passed laws making the project more expensive. PFS has challenged all these state laws in federal court.

However, in January 2002, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) released its Final Environmental Impact Assessment, which concluded that the proposed facility is the "preferred alternative for spent fuel storage".

PFS continues to work on other aspects of the project including a dual use storage cask and transport plan. In the US historically spent fuel has been shipped by truck, however in the future it will all be done by rail. NRC has published a package performance study (Report 66.92) that demonstrates the reduction of risks in nuclear transport. This allowed PFS to make a strong case for no special treatment for waste trains. NEI has reported that 26 states already have their own hazardous material regulations and fees for transport of spent fuel. These range from $4,500/rail cask, to a $25 million bond (in the State of Utah). States also require inspections, escorts, and ban routes that have bridges and tunnels. Industry intends to challenge these requirements in court under the doctrine of federal preemption, i.e. that a national interest is more important than a state's more parochial interests.

PFS will use dedicated spent fuel trains with a special rail cask designed for the train. A prototype of this cask and rail car are going to be tested by TTCI (Transport Technology Center, Inc) in Pueblo CO later this year. A company called Trinity manufactures the prototype rail car. The relevant US standards committee has certified the rail car so that it can go on any track in the nation as meeting US Hazardous Material standards. The patent for the rail car is owned by PFS. The railroads have stated that spent fuel trains are not an operational issue for the nations railroad system, thus paving the way for future spent fuel transports by rail.

The group's activities mean that DOE will probably use the PFS system for its transport, if and when it begins to accept US utility spent fuel. The DOE Transport Plan that was submitted to Congress at the beginning of 2001, had minimal detail on transports and no schedule to move utility spent fuel in order to meet the 2010 deadline. Therefore the utilities have complained to DOE that it is imperative to begin serious transportation planning and to develop a public outreach program in support of the transport plan.

2.6.1 Belgium: It is expected that the Boom clay formations studied at the Mol site will be officially confirmed suitable for the deep geological disposal of high-level waste. This follows an extensive R & D programme to evaluate the possibility of disposal of high-level waste in deep clay layers since the 1970s. The next step is the selection of a site for which a Preliminary Safety Assessment Report will be drawn up. The completed report should be submitted to the competent authorities by 2013.

2.6.2 Finland: On 18 May 2001, the Finnish Parliament ratified the Decision in Principle - by a majority of 159:3 - on the final disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel in Olkiluoto, Eurajoki. This followed the successful approval of an environmental impact assessment at the Olikiluoto site.

Posiva Oy, the company responsible for HLW disposal in Finland, will now focus on confirming bedrock investigations at Olkiluoto and an underground rock characterization facility, ONKALO, will be constructed around 2003 or 2004. Investigations at final disposal depth can commence around 2006.
The underground rock characterization facility is necessary to study the geohydraulic, geochemical and mechanical properties of the Olkiluoto bedrock and to test the disposal technologies in realistic conditions.

The ratification of the Decision in Principle keeps the proposed scheduling for the final disposal facility on track. The construction of the actual facility should begin in 2010 and the facility is scheduled to receive spent fuel in 2020.

In October 2001, STUK, the Finnish radiation and nuclear safety authority announced that they want to conduct an additional year of bedrock testing at Olkiluoto. STUK has proposed that granting of a construction permit for the planned repository, which is currently scheduled for 2010, should be delayed by one year. However, they believe that the scheduled start of operations in 2020 will not be affected.

2.6.3 Sweden: Further progress has been made in the Swedish programme to choose a final repository for the country's spent nuclear fuel. In November 2000, SKB, the Swedish nuclear fuel and waste management company selected three sites for further in-depth studies - including test drilling. The proposed sites are in the municipalities of Oskarshamn, Östhammar and Tierp.

The Swedish government and the relevant competent authorities gave the go-ahead for in-depth studies at the three sites in November 2001. Approval for such investigations was then being sought by SKB from each of the municipalities.

In December 2001, Osthammar became the first municipality to formally accept site investigations to determine the suitability of the site as a potential location for a national spent nuclear fuel repository. A feasibility study in Osthammar, completed in 2000, indicated that the bedrock of the proposed site near Forsmark is potentially suitable for hosting a safe deep repository. The investigations at Osthammar will begin in early 2002 and will take 5-6 years to complete. Feasibility studies have also been carried out at two further sites - Oskarshamn and Tierp. Approval from these two other sites has yet to be given.

Following the rock characterization studies, which will take 5 - 6 years, SKB expect to be able to propose a site for the deep repository and submit a siting application by about 2007. (see also http://www.skb.se).

2.6.4 US: The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and its 1987 amendments provide for the US Department of Energy (DOE) to conduct research and then construct an underground repository for the permanent storage of used nuclear fuel and high-level waste from US utilities. US law requires the DOE to develop a temporary storage facility, a transportation system, and a permanent repository for used nuclear fuel. Yucca Mountain, a region of the Nevada Test Site was selected for study as a possible repository site. While DOE is making progress on this research, the program is at least 12 years behind schedule. No site has been selected for a temporary storage facility. On Jan. 31, 1998, the federal government defaulted on its contractual obligation to begin accepting used fuel from US nuclear plants-even though utility customers have already paid over $15 billion into a special fund for this purpose. As part of the scientific study, DOE issued a "viability assessment" in December 1998. This finding was crucial to further progress at the site. Congress has considered legislation that would ensure the success of the program but this law has not been enacted, primarily due to political opposition from the state Nevada.

Funding for the Yucca Mountain project comes from collecting one-tenth of a cent (a mill) per kilo-watt hour from electricity customers into a special fund called the Nuclear Waste Fund. To date this fund has collected approximately $17 billion since 1983. Between 1983 and 2000 DOE spent approximately $6.7 billion on the site characterization research. It is anticipated that a further $10 billion will be necessary to ensure the repository could begin accepting spent fuel for disposal by 2010. Even though the money is collected specifically for this program, Congress must still appropriate money each year for DOE's work. Congress has consistently failed to provide the program with adequate funding in the view of the US nuclear industry. This is one major reason why the program is behind schedule. In the Financial Year 2002 (which began in October 2001) DOE had requested $445 million for the Yucca Mountain project. While the House of Representatives appropriated almost the total amount DOE had requested, the Senate funding legislation was considerably lower. The Senate Appropriations subcommittee responsible for allocating all energy funding is Chaired by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) an outspoken opponent of the Yucca Mountain program. At the time of this report - the conference committee of House and Senate representatives have not yet agreed a final figure for the program. Nonetheless it is obvious the DOE needs to find a method to ensure that as the project moves into the construction phase it is not starved of funds.

The Yucca Mountain program experienced a year of major progress in 2001. DOE is scheduled to issue its final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and is currently holding public hearings in Nevada as well as around the country in the fall of 2001. The preliminary site suitability evaluation report was published in August 2001. This report confirms that the site and the engineered facility for the repository can meet the EPA's radiation safety standards for protecting the public's health and the environment. DOE is now accepting comments from the public and interested stakeholders on its findings.

In January 2002, the Secretary of Energy made the formal decision to recommend to the President that the Yucca Mountain site be the nations waste repository. His decision started the final site approval process. The law that creates the Yucca Mountain program is very specific about the process required for final site approval. Once DOE has determined that the site is suitable, it notifies the Nevada Governor and state legislature, then 30 days later DOE notify the President. The Secretary of Energy submitted his recommendation to the President on February 14 2002, with the President giving approval on 16 February 2002The recommendation of the site included a number of documents, including the final EIS and a description of the waste package as well as the scientific rationale for selecting this site.

The President must now make his recommendation to Congress. Assuming that the state of Nevada vetoes its selection as the nation's repository (which at this point is a given), Congress must pass a joint resolution approving the site within 90 calendar days of continuous session after the date that Congress receives the recommendation. Once DOE has received authorization to proceed, the process requires it to submit license applications to the NRC in order to commence construction of the underground disposal facility.

2.7.1 France: The separation of minor actinides and fission products contained in long-lived radioactive waste and their subsequent transformation into shorter-lived isotopes is scientifically feasible, the French atomic energy commission, CEA, concluded in October 2001. However, much work still needs to be done before this initial breakthrough can be developed commercially. The CEA's next stage of its research programme - focusing on technical and economic feasibility - is due to be concluded by 2005.

2.7.2 US: A technique known as pyroprocessing has been developed at the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Argonne National Laboratory-West for reprocessing nuclear spent fuel. The process, currently at laboratory scale, would first separate uranium-238 from the rest of the nuclear waste. This U238, which makes up 96% of nuclear spent fuel, could be stored in existing facilities for low-level waste (LLW). Plutonium and other long-lived transuranic elements - which make up 1% of nuclear waste - could then be broken down into less radioactive materials by the process of nuclear transmutation in reactors. The remaining 3% of short-lived fission products would be incorporated into ceramic or metallic waste forms for disposal in a suitable repository. (See also WNA Information Paper 69, "Processing of Nuclear Wastes")

The DOE also reported in October 2001, that its programme for the treatment of sodium-bonded spent fuel, arising from the Argonne experimental fast-breeder reactor and which may not be suitable for direct geological disposal, is ahead of schedule. An electrometallurgical treatment technique is currently being used to stablise the sodium, which is highly reactive when exposed to water, and convert the spent fuel into waste forms that are suitable for geological disposal. The programme involves the processing of 24 500 kgs of sodium-bonded spent fuel and preparation of the fuel for final disposal.

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) reported in October 2001 that depleted uranium (DU) could be used as a strengthening ingredient in spent fuel storage and transport casks, and disposal packages. The material that would be created using DU would make an ideal candidate for a multipurpose cask, ORNL suggests. The proposal calls for replacing the steel components in casks and waste packages destined for use at the proposed Yucca Mountain repository with a depleted uranium dioxide-steel, ceramic metallic composite, or 'cermet'. The so-called cermet would consist of depleted uranium dioxide particulates encased between steel layers - possibly even recycled steel from nuclear facilities.

2.8.1 Germany: In September 2000, the German Government gave the go-ahead to resume the transport of spent nuclear fuel to La Hague, France. This is the first approval of transports out of the country since a ban was imposed in 1998. The decision was followed in January 2001 by an agreement in principle by the government on the recommencement of transports from Germany to Sellafield, UK.

These decisions have since led to the resumption of spent fuel transports both to Sellafield and La Hague. (see also "section 4.4 on Transboundary movements and other transports" for further details)

2.9.1 Canada: In Spring 2000, the Wastes and Decommissioning Division of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission initiated the Contaminated Lands Evaluation and Assessment Network Programme (CLEAN). Ten categories of sites were identified that met the basic definition: sites that may require licensing under the new Nuclear Safety and Control Act, that did not require licensing under the former Atomic Energy Control Act. Five changes between the Acts resulted in the requirement for up to 1,000 sites to be evaluated.

The changes between the Acts were:

1. The NSC Act binds the crown

2. The change of the licensing trigger from a soil concentration of 1 SQ/kg (scheduled quantity per kilogram) to a total inventory of 1EQ (exemption quantity)

3. The public dose limit changed from 5 mSv/a to 1 mSv/a

4. The NSC Act requires licensees to control non-radiological impacts associated with their sites, where previously the AEC Act addressed only radiological impacts on the environment.

5. The NSC Act contacts specific requirements for the possession, use and control of contaminated lands.

Unlicensed idle mines exist in the Bancroft area of Ontario, Northern Saskatchewan and in the Sahtu region of the Northwest Territories. There are less than 10 of immediate concern. Licensing is difficult since most are under the control of Federal or Provincial government agencies who are not familiar with CNSC licensing needs or philosophies. Discussions continue with private sector companies, private landowners, Ontario Ministry of Environment, Ontario Northern Mine Development Ministry, Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada, and Public Works and Government Services, Canada.

Much of the concern for these sites is tailings management, followed closely by elevated gamma fields across the sites. Conventional hazards at these sites are important considerations. Non-radiological releases from the sites complicate remediation requirements and involve many other government regulators in the programme. There is often a conflict of interest between the likely license holder and the agency responsible for non-radiological clean up.

Remediation standards are being developed which will allow casual access (<500 h/y) for these sites. In the past these have been 100µR/h (1µSv/h) site average over a 25 meter grid, not to exceed 250 µR/h (2.5 µSv/h) at any one spot over the property. This includes background radiation.

For land use activities of more than 500 h/y stricter standards are being assessed. One example being assessed is for light use (<2000 h/y) 25 µR/h (0.25µSv/h) over a 3-meter grid, including background.

2.9.2 Germany: After ten years of remediation activities at the former Eastern Germany mines, significant progress has been made. As of December 2001, over DM7 billion of the DM13 billion made available by the federal German government had been invested in remedial work.

The following table summarises the status of the remediation activities as of December 2001.

previous section / top / next section