Nuclear Waste: Foreign Countries' Approaches to High-Level Waste Storage
and Disposal (Letter Report, 08/04/94, GAO/RCED-94-172).
Some features of other countries' approaches to nuclear waste disposal
may offer insight for the United States, but a variety of economic,
political, geographic, and other factors must be considered in deciding
whether these features warrant further exploration and possible
adaptation to the U.S. program. Governments around the world support the
use of geologic repositories as the best method for disposing of highly
radioactive waste, but no country has yet build an operational facility.
All the countries GAO visited had experienced problems with their waste
management programs, and most do not plan to have a repository until
2020 or later. Differences exist between the U.S. and foreign
approaches to repository development. For example, all the countries
GAO visited have addressed the issue of temporary waste storage, thereby
relieving pressure to quickly build a repository. Also, other countries
often involve nuclear facilities in their repository development
programs and allow waste managers much flexibility in developing their
technical and engineering repository concepts. Finally, several
countries are exploring the use of long-lived engineered
barriers--fabricated components, such as waste containers--for
containing radiation in the repositories they are designing.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-94-172
TITLE: Nuclear Waste: Foreign Countries' Approaches to High-Level
Waste Storage and Disposal
DATE: 08/04/94
SUBJECT: Nuclear waste disposal
Nuclear waste storage
Nuclear waste management
Foreign governments
Comparative analysis
Radioactive wastes
Site selection
Energy research
Nuclear facility safety
IDENTIFIER: Sweden
DOE Yucca Mountain Project (NV)
Hanford (WA)
Deaf Smith County (TX)
France
Germany
Switzerland
Canada
Japan
United Kingdom
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *
* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *
* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *
* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *
* numbers of the printed product. *
* *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble *
* those in the printed version. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
**************************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Honorable
Richard H. Bryan, U.S. Senate
August 1994
NUCLEAR WASTE - FOREIGN COUNTRIES'
APPROACHES TO HIGH-LEVEL WASTE
STORAGE AND DISPOSAL
GAO/RCED-94-172
Foreign Nuclear Waste Programs
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
AECL - Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
ANDRA - National Radioactive Waste Management Agency (France)
CEA - Atomic Energy Commission (France)
DOE - Department of Energy
GAO - General Accounting Office
NAGRA - National Cooperative for Disposal of Radioactive Waste
(Switzerland)
NWPA - Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
SKB - Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company
SKI - Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-256826
August 4, 1994
The Honorable Richard H. Bryan
United States Senate
Dear Senator Bryan:
Permanent disposal of highly radioactive waste presents an extremely
difficult challenge to countries around the world because the waste
will remain dangerous for thousands of years. Long considered the
"Achilles' heel" of nuclear power, waste disposal is one of the most
controversial aspects of nuclear power production. The United States
faces a particularly serious challenge because it has, by far, the
largest civilian nuclear power program in the world. The 1982
Nuclear Waste Policy Act required the Department of Energy (DOE) to
develop an underground repository for highly radioactive waste. In
1987, the Congress narrowed repository investigations to a site at
Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Originally, the Congress expected that a
repository might be ready to accept waste by 1998; now, however,
DOE's official target opening date is 2010, and that date is
optimistic.
Concerned about the Yucca Mountain project, you asked us to (1)
compare and contrast the approaches taken by major nuclear countries
for managing civilian high-level waste with the approach taken by the
United States and (2) identify lessons that can be learned from these
countries' approaches. In response to your request, we visited
Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United
Kingdom. In each country, we interviewed cognizant waste management
officials, such as representatives of the central government, waste
management agency, regulatory agency, affected local governments,
nuclear industry, and environmental groups. We supplemented our
interviews with documentation when available, but we did not audit
each country's waste management program to verify the accuracy and
completeness of the information we received. Appendix I briefly
compares elements of the nuclear waste programs in the countries we
visited with elements of the U.S. program, and appendixes II through
VIII discuss each country's waste program. Appendix IX contains
further information about our objectives, scope, and methodology.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
Some features of other countries' approaches to nuclear waste
disposal may offer insights for the United States. However, a myriad
of social, economic, political, geographic, and other factors have
influenced each country's waste program and must be considered when
determining whether these features warrant further exploration and
possible adaptation to the U.S. program. Governments around the
world support the use of geologic repositories as the best method for
disposing of highly radioactive waste, but no country has yet built
an operational facility. All of the countries we visited have
encountered difficulties with their waste management programs, and
most do not plan to have a repository until 2020 or later. Site
selection has been a particularly difficult and contentious part of
repository development. Germany is the only country we visited that
has a potential repository site, but it also faces substantial
opposition to its program and may explore alternatives. Several
other countries redirected their waste disposal programs after
encountering significant opposition to the selection of potential
research or repository sites.
Differences exist between the U.S. and foreign approaches to
repository development. For example, all of the countries we visited
have addressed the issue of temporary waste storage, thereby
relieving pressure to quickly construct a repository. In the United
States, an ongoing debate over the federal government's and nuclear
utilities' responsibilities for waste storage has seriously affected
the repository program. Also, other governments, unlike the U.S.
government, often involve the nuclear utilities in their repository
development programs and generally allow waste managers a relatively
high degree of flexibility in developing their technical and
engineering repository concepts. Finally, several countries are
exploring the use of long-lived engineered barriers (fabricated
components, such as waste containers) for containing radiation in the
repositories they are designing. DOE, in contrast, plans to rely
heavily on the geology at Yucca Mountain to contain radiation and has
limited its research on engineered barriers.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Nuclear power generation creates significant amounts of radioactive
waste. Highly radioactive waste, which is a small portion of the
total waste produced, contains most of the radioactivity. One type
of highly radioactive waste is used, or spent, fuel, which is taken
from nuclear reactors after it can no longer efficiently sustain a
nuclear chain reaction. Some of the seven countries we visited
reprocess spent fuel to recover reusable uranium and plutonium and
then solidify the remaining highly radioactive waste into glass logs.
Since the public must be protected from both spent fuel and the
high-level waste generated from reprocessing, all seven countries are
temporarily storing these wastes until permanent disposal options
have been explored and a selected option has been developed.
Progress on nuclear waste disposal is widely considered a
prerequisite for any future growth of nuclear power. Some
governments even stipulated that a feasible waste management system
be demonstrated before the use of nuclear power could continue or
expand. In the United States, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
charged DOE with developing an underground repository for the safe,
permanent disposal (meaning no foreseeable intent to recover) of
highly radioactive waste. In 1986, the President selected three
sites--Yucca Mountain, Nevada; Hanford, Washington; and Deaf Smith
County, Texas--for detailed study from among nine sites that DOE had
been evaluating. Then, in 1987, the Congress narrowed investigations
for a repository to the site at Yucca Mountain. The Congress also
authorized DOE to construct a facility, called a monitored
retrievable storage facility, for storing a limited quantity of waste
until the waste can be disposed of in the repository. However,
construction of a storage facility cannot begin until the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission has authorized DOE to construct a repository.
OPPOSITION TO GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL
AFFECTS ALL COUNTRIES' PROGRAMS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
Opposition from various groups has profoundly affected the waste
programs in the United States and in all of the countries we visited.
National governments generally believe that deep geologic disposal
offers the best option for isolating highly radioactive waste. While
none of the countries we visited has yet constructed a repository for
highly radioactive waste, all but the United Kingdom are actively
pursuing this goal. Gaining public support for a potential
repository site has, however, proven to be difficult and contentious.
Potentially affected populations have opposed the siting of a
repository near them, and gaining public acceptance is expected to
remain one of the most difficult tasks facing waste managers.
In response to substantial opposition, some countries have redirected
their waste programs. Several countries had planned to begin their
repository programs by studying specific sites but met with
opposition to their efforts at these sites. As a result, waste
managers redirected their programs toward developing generic concepts
that they believe could later be adapted to the conditions found at
specific sites. For example, by first developing a generic
repository concept, Sweden, Switzerland, and Canada hope to
demonstrate to technical experts, political leaders, and the public
that a repository could be located at any one of many sites. In some
cases, countries are willing to delay their repository's development
schedule in order to gain additional public support. Japanese
officials, for example, explained that they would spend 10 to 15
years, if necessary, working to gain public support before moving
ahead with the licensing process for a nuclear facility. Similarly,
following demonstrations of public concern over preliminary site
investigations in France, the Parliament slowed and redirected the
program by ordering a 15-year period of waste management research.
Opponents of repository efforts include individuals, groups, and
governmental bodies, many of whom are also opposed to nuclear power
production. Some opponents live near potential research or
repository sites and are concerned that the site may present
excessive hazards. Such opposition may pose a particular challenge
for countries that are smaller yet more densely populated than the
United States. For example, France, which is roughly twice the size
of Colorado, has a population density of 259 people per square mile,
compared with a population density of 70 people per square mile in
the United States; hence, finding an isolated repository site may be
more difficult in France than in the United States. Other opponents
believe that nuclear power must be stopped before a discussion of
waste management alternatives can begin. For many, preventing the
disposal of highly radioactive waste is an important part of an
overall strategy for stopping nuclear power. These opponents believe
that mounting volumes of waste--with no place for disposal--will add
force to their argument for shutting down all nuclear power plants.
Finally, prominent environmental groups in several countries told us
that they are concerned that geologic repositories may not safely
isolate waste over the time required. These groups generally
advocate long-term, aboveground storage as the "least-worst" option
for holding waste while disposal methods, including the use of
repositories, are explored further.
Germany is the only country we visited that, like the United States,
is investigating a potential repository site and is encountering
opposition to its efforts. Germany, however, may redirect its
current program. In Germany, the affected state government welcomed
the repository research effort when it was proposed in the 1970s.
Subsequently, however, the political makeup of the state government
changed, and the current government opposes nuclear power. The state
is responsible for deciding whether to license the repository, and if
the current government remains in power, the state may deny the
license or prolong the licensing process indefinitely. Germany's
federal government has the authority to overrule the state's
licensing decision if it determines that the state's objections are
political rather than technical. A recent report indicates that,
partly because of opposition, Germany may be reconsidering the
current project in favor of long-term interim storage and the
exploration of additional potential repository sites.
The situation in the United States is somewhat similar to that in
Germany. During the 1970s, the state of Nevada encouraged the
federal government to consider DOE's Nevada Test Site (which
encompasses part of Yucca Mountain) for the "storage and processing"
of nuclear material under certain conditions and the exploration of
potential uses of solar energy. In more recent years, however,
Nevada has opposed the selection of Yucca Mountain as a potential
repository site. After the President recommends a site for a
repository, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act authorizes the state to
submit a notice of disapproval. The Congress may override such a
notice of disapproval by passing a resolution that becomes law.
OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE ADDRESSED
INTERIM STORAGE NEEDS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
The countries we visited have decided, for the foreseeable future,
how they will store their waste until disposal. In contrast, interim
waste storage remains a pressing issue in the United States. In most
of the other countries, the waste producers--the nuclear
utilities--are responsible for storing the waste until a disposal
facility is available. Interim storage methods vary, but all serve
to contain waste and free waste managers to address waste disposal.
For example, France and the United Kingdom routinely ship spent fuel
from their nuclear reactors to their reprocessing plants. During
reprocessing, uranium and plutonium are recovered for reuse, and the
highly radioactive waste is solidified into glass logs, which are
then easily stored at the reprocessing facilities.
In contrast, Sweden and Canada do not reprocess their spent fuel and,
therefore, plan to store the spent fuel until a repository is
available. The waste management company formed by the Swedish
nuclear utilities has constructed a storage facility near an existing
nuclear power plant to hold all of the spent fuel generated by the
country's 12 nuclear plants until a repository is built. Utilities
in Canada plan to store all of their spent fuel at the country's five
reactor sites until a repository has been developed. Regardless of
the storage method used, officials in all of the countries we visited
indicated that they were generally satisfied with their country's
interim storage arrangements.
In the United States, waste storage remains a pressing issue with
serious ramifications for the repository program. Inability to
resolve this issue is largely due to the debate over the roles and
responsibilities of the nuclear utilities and the federal government
with respect to interim storage. The 1982 act authorizes DOE to
enter into disposal contracts with waste producers; these contracts
must provide that (1) following commencement of operation of a
repository, the Secretary of Energy must take title to utilities'
high-level waste or spent nuclear fuel as expeditiously as
practicable upon request of the generator or owner and (2) in return
for the payment of fees, the Secretary, beginning not later than
January 31, 1998, will dispose of these wastes.\1 Some have
interpreted these provisions to mean that DOE is obligated to begin
accepting spent fuel from the nuclear utilities in 1998. DOE has
made a preliminary determination that it does not have a clear legal
obligation under the act to accept waste in the absence of an
operational repository or other facility. According to DOE, however,
the Department may have created such an expectation through the
implementation of its waste disposal contracts with nuclear
utilities, some of which are reaching the limits of their existing
storage capacities. However, DOE will have neither a repository nor
a temporary storage facility available by 1998.\2
Waste storage in the United States is further complicated by the fact
that highly radioactive waste is stored in more than 30 states--at
over 70 nuclear plant sites, other nuclear facilities, and three
federally owned sites. Although virtually all utilities should be
able to store their spent fuel through their plants' licensed lives
and beyond, some will need to expand their existing storage capacity
to do so. As we concluded in May 1993, until the issue of temporary
waste storage is separated from that of repository development and is
fully addressed--as has been done in the countries we visited--DOE's
repository program may be unable to proceed in an orderly fashion.\3
--------------------
\1 The Standard Contract for Disposal meshes these requirements into
one clause. It combines the requirements to (1) take title and (2)
dispose under the umbrella term "services." The contract states that
disposal "services" shall begin "after commencement of facility
operations, not later than January 31, 1998," but does not specify
which clause controls if a facility is not in operation by 1998.
\2 DOE issued a Notice of Inquiry on May 25, 1994, to address
concerns of affected parties over the continued storage of spent fuel
at reactor sites beyond 1998. One of the issues DOE requested
comment on was its preliminary view that it does not have a statutory
obligation to accept spent nuclear fuel in the absence of an
operational repository or a suitable storage facility. In June 1994,
a number of utilities, states, and state utility commissions filed
two separate suits in federal court asserting that DOE has not
complied with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended. The
parties seek, among other things, a declarative ruling that the act
imposes on DOE an unconditional obligation to begin accepting
radioactive waste by January 31, 1998, in return for the payment of
fees, and that the decision of DOE not to begin accepting waste by
that date was not in accord with the law.
\3 Nuclear Waste: Yucca Mountain Project Behind Schedule and Facing
Major Scientific Uncertainties (GAO/RCED-93-124, May 21, 1993).
OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE LESS
AMBITIOUS REPOSITORY
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
Largely because they have adequate waste storage facilities and are
concerned about the public's acceptance of repositories, the
countries we visited are generally pursuing less ambitious repository
development schedules than the United States. Waste managers in most
other countries said they were under no time pressure to develop
geologic repositories, mainly because their storage facilities can
hold all of their waste for decades. Perhaps more importantly, some
waste managers believe that ample time must be set aside to address
the complicated technical issues facing waste managers and to gain
public acceptance of waste facilities. Other countries' waste
managers generally set their own time schedules, and most do not
anticipate opening their geologic repositories before 2020--10 to 30
years after the date planned for the United States. The United
Kingdom, for example, has chosen to store its waste for at least 50
years before deciding how to proceed with waste disposal. As table 1
shows, Germany is the only country we visited that plans to open a
repository before the 2010 opening date planned for the United
States; however, according to a recent report, Germany may redirect
its program and delay this date.
Table 1
Repository Development Status and
Estimated Opening Dates in Selected
Countries
Earliest
anticipated
repository
Country opening date Status
------------- ------------- ------------------------------
Germany 2008 Constructing underground test
facility
United States 2010 Constructing underground test
facility
Sweden 2020 Searching for suitable site
Switzerland 2020 or later Searching for suitable site
France 2020 or later Developing repository concept
Canada 2025 or later Reviewing repository concept
Japan 2030 Searching for suitable site
United After 2040 Delaying decision until 2040
Kingdom
------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast to the programs in most other nations, the U.S. program
is largely driven by DOE's objectives of accepting waste from
utilities beginning in 1998 and disposing of the waste in a
repository as soon as possible. Originally, DOE set 1998 as its
target date for operating a repository, but later it postponed the
opening to 2003 and then 2010. As we have previously reported, DOE
is unlikely to meet either of its schedule objectives.
DOE's waste disposal approach has repeatedly been criticized as being
schedule-driven. Both the waste management board of the National
Academy of Sciences and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board,
which was established by the Congress to review the scientific and
technical validity of DOE's disposal program, have commented that
DOE's schedule objectives are unrealistic and are inappropriately
driving the program. The Academy's board recommended, among other
things, that the Congress "reconsider the rigid, inflexible schedule
embodied in the NWPA [Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982] and the 1987
amendments."\4 Furthermore, the Office of Technology Assessment
suggested that establishing a repository development schedule that is
accepted as feasible and reasonable, rather than "quick," may best
promote confidence in a disposal program.\5 Nonetheless, the Office
cautioned that an open-ended schedule could encourage continued
deferral of the expenditures required to develop disposal facilities
because the cost of storing waste is relatively low.
--------------------
\4 Rethinking High-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal, a Position
Statement of the Board on Radioactive Waste Management, National
Research Council (National Academy Press, 1990), and Special Report
to Congress and the Secretary of Energy, Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board (Mar. 1993).
\5 Managing Commercial High-Level Radioactive Waste (OTA-O-172, Apr.
1982).
WASTE PRODUCERS IN OTHER
NATIONS ARE ASSIGNED GREATER
RESPONSIBILITY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
Nuclear utilities in the countries we visited are generally much more
involved in their country's waste storage and disposal programs than
are their counterparts in the United States. In many of the
countries we visited, the government has made the waste producers
(primarily nuclear utilities) responsible for managing and ultimately
disposing of highly radioactive waste. Because the utilities have
generated the waste, many governments take the position that the
utilities should be responsible for implementing the disposal
programs. Ownership of the nuclear utilities varies from public to
private to combinations of both. Regardless of ownership, the
nuclear utilities generally participate heavily in their nation's
waste management program. Governments oversee these programs through
regulatory agencies that ultimately license, or advise their
government on licensing, nuclear waste facilities.
Some countries have placed the responsibility for safely managing and
disposing of nuclear waste directly on the waste producers. In
Sweden and Switzerland, the nuclear utilities have formed
organizations that are responsible for designing, building, and
operating a repository. In Canada, the primary nuclear utility is
owned by the provincial (state) government and is heavily involved in
the federal government's waste research program.
In contrast, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act made the federal government
responsible for accepting and disposing of waste from the privately
owned nuclear reactors scattered throughout the United States. DOE
is responsible for all aspects of investigating, siting,
constructing, and operating the federal repository facility. Much
like several of their counterparts in other countries, the U.S.
nuclear utilities pay fees collected from their ratepayers into a
government fund earmarked to finance the government's disposal
program. However, the U.S. nuclear utilities have no formal role in
DOE's program. The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board believes the
Congress effectively removed the utilities from the activities
required to develop and operate a waste disposal facility when it
placed the responsibility with the government. The Board believes
the approach taken abroad--assigning responsibility for disposing of
the waste to those that generate it--may encourage greater managerial
and financial accountability. In March 1993, the Board recommended
reviewing the organizational approaches taken by other countries for
ideas about how to restructure the U.S. program.\6
--------------------
\6 Special Report to Congress and the Secretary of Energy, Nuclear
Waste Technical Review Board (Mar. 1993).
OTHER NATIONS HAVE TAKEN A LESS
DETAILED REGULATORY APPROACH
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
Regulators in most other nations issue general safety goals to
protect the environment from radiation in geologic repositories, but
they plan to avoid the level of detail embodied in the U.S. approach
to regulating geologic repositories. Safety goals, such as limits on
the annual radiation dose for those living near a repository site,
are set in broad terms and often cover a period of 10,000 years.
Government regulators in most countries told us that they are
concerned only that the proposed system meet these overall safety
goals and expect to leave the details of the repository's design to
the designers.
Most foreign regulators stated that they will act as skeptics at
various points in the nuclear facility licensing process, evaluating
the safety arguments (sometimes called the "safety case") put forth
by the waste managers. In France, for example, the regulatory
authorities have issued basic safety rules that describe the
objectives of deep geologic disposal, and the waste managers are
responsible for developing specific methods to meet these basic
guidelines. By avoiding detailed criteria, the regulators expect to
give the operators the flexibility to respond to the conditions
discovered as they proceed with their repository programs.
In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency is
developing disposal standards for the U.S. repository program that
are similar to other countries' general safety goals. In addition,
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has set specific performance
criteria intended to ensure that the waste disposal system at the
repository is safe. For example, the Commission requires that
waste packages (the waste, its containers, and any materials
immediately surrounding the containers) remain "substantially
complete" for a period to be determined by the Commission of not
less than 300 nor more than 1,000 years after permanent
repository closure;
thereafter, the release rates of radioactive material from the
engineered barrier system (the waste packages and the
underground facility) not exceed limits specified in the
regulation; and
before the waste is emplaced, groundwater travel time from the
repository to the accessible environment be at least 1,000 years
or such other travel time as may be approved or specified by the
Commission.
SOME COUNTRIES ARE EMPHASIZING
ENGINEERED BARRIERS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
While the countries we visited plan to use a combination of natural
(geologic) and engineered barriers to isolate waste, some are
considering relatively more emphasis on long-lived engineered
barriers. In contrast, while DOE will use a combination of barriers,
it plans to rely primarily on the natural geology of the Yucca
Mountain site to contain radiation. Because of the available
geology, the countries we visited expect to build their repositories
below the water table; therefore, groundwater is expected to
ultimately penetrate the engineered barriers, corrode the waste
canisters, and contact the waste. Some waste managers believe that
robust engineered barriers can help delay the groundwater's
contacting the waste and transporting radiation to the environment.
Waste managers in some countries expect that emphasizing long-lived
engineered barriers will help them establish that the combination of
their repository sites and engineered barriers will meet their
respective safety goals and may also help them gain public acceptance
for the repositories. Sweden, for example, plans to contain waste in
copper and steel canisters, which its waste managers believe will
remain intact for 1 million years. Although Sweden considers its
granite geology to be very stable and suitable for a repository, it
is treating its geology as a backup system that will be used to
contain the radiation only if the canisters fail. Sweden believes
that the public will place greater confidence in the repository if it
knows that, from a technical standpoint, all of the repository's
safety features have been maximized to prevent the release of
radiation.
Japan, Canada, and Switzerland are also exploring the benefits of
long-lived engineered barriers. Japan is studying the use of robust
engineered barriers partly because of the country's complex geology.
Canada has developed a repository concept employing a titanium or
copper waste canister that would retain its integrity for at least
500 years. However, Canada is also considering developing a
longer-lived canister, in part to help alleviate public concerns
about waste disposal. Finally, Switzerland's planned engineered
barrier system includes a canister that would provide complete waste
containment for 1,000 years and, in the opinion of Swiss researchers,
would probably contain waste for at least 100,000 years when used in
conjunction with other elements of the engineered barrier system,
such as a thick clay packing material.
Germany is the only country we visited that, like DOE, is placing
greater reliance on a geologic barrier--a salt dome--than on
engineered barriers. Under the current program, the waste will first
be placed in steel and cast-iron canisters, then deposited in the
repository. Because of its geologic properties, the salt will, over
time, surround and encapsulate the waste, thereby isolating it and
preventing the release of radiation. For this reason, Germany
believes that a robust engineered barrier is unnecessary. Germany's
approach is similar to DOE's approach at the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant in New Mexico for disposing of the transuranic-contaminated
wastes\7 produced in its nuclear weapons program.
DOE plans to rely heavily on the geology at Yucca Mountain--volcanic
rock called tuff--to contain radiation. According to DOE's siting
guidelines, "the engineered barriers will be designed to complement
the natural barriers, which provide the primary means for waste
isolation." As a result, DOE has limited its attention to engineered
barriers to compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
requirements. The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, however, has
raised questions about DOE's approach and has recommended that
engineered barriers be viewed as an integral part of the waste
management program and that robust, long-lived waste packages be
fully evaluated.
--------------------
\7 Transuranic waste is discarded material that is contaminated with
man-made radioactive elements having atomic numbers greater than
uranium. These elements, such as plutonium and americium, decay
slowly and remain radioactive for thousands of years.
OBSERVATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9
Some features of other countries' approaches to nuclear waste
disposal may offer insights for the United States. However, a myriad
of social, economic, political, geographic, and other factors that
have shaped and influenced each country's waste program must be
considered when determining whether these features warrant further
exploration and possible adaptation to the U.S. program. In the
countries we visited, we found pronounced differences from the United
States in three key areas: (1) involving waste producers in waste
storage and disposal programs; (2) exploring robust engineered
barriers; and most importantly, (3) addressing interim storage needs,
thereby allowing waste managers to focus on developing realistic
repository schedules.
Foreign nuclear utilities generally have more responsibility for
waste disposal than their American counterparts. Proponents of this
approach believe that placing the burden of developing and
implementing waste disposal solutions on the waste producers may
encourage better managerial and financial accountability for the
program. Further assessments of the management of the U.S. waste
disposal program may benefit from exploring greater involvement by
utilities.
Other countries have found that the use of robust engineered barriers
to contain nuclear waste may offer political as well as technical
advantages for repository programs. However, these gains must be
balanced against the potential costs of this approach. In other
countries, regulators generally allow waste managers to develop the
combination of geologic and engineered barriers that the repository
designers deem appropriate. In contrast, DOE must meet specific
regulatory requirements for both geologic and engineered barriers.
Developing engineered barriers that exceed regulatory requirements
may cost more in terms of time and expense than is currently
envisioned. These considerations, therefore, need to be balanced
against potential improvements in safety and public acceptance that
could be gained from a more robust engineered barrier design. Under
DOE's current approach, however, this evaluation does not appear
imminent.
The most significant difference between the approaches of the United
States and of the countries we visited is that the other countries
appear to have separated the issue of long-term waste disposal from
considerations of temporary waste storage. Because these countries
have addressed their interim storage needs, waste managers are able
to focus less on meeting aggressive schedules for completing their
repositories and more on addressing the technical and political
issues they believe are necessary for successful long-term waste
disposal. A variety of factors have allowed waste managers in other
countries to separate the waste storage and disposal issues. For
example, countries that have chosen to reprocess their spent fuel are
also able to store their waste--at least temporarily--at the
reprocessing plants. Furthermore, the nuclear power programs in
other countries are significantly smaller than the U.S. program.
Most importantly, however, the countries we visited are able, since
they have addressed their waste storage needs, to focus their
attention on a repository development schedule that is not
constrained by pressure to begin removing waste from power plants or
other temporary storage facilities. In stark contrast, DOE's
repository development schedule appears to be based predominantly on
the earliest possible acceptance and disposal of utilities'
waste--rather than on the technical requirements of constructing a
repository. What we learned from other countries confirms what we
have stated earlier: Resolving the interim storage issue would allow
the United States to separate this issue from the repository's
development--as other countries have done--and to focus on the steps
required to complete the repository.
AGENCY COMMENTS
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10
This report discusses, but does not evaluate, features of the U.S.
nuclear waste management program, drawing primarily from our previous
reports on the program. Hence, we did not obtain comments on a draft
of the report from DOE. We did provide drafts of the relevant
country appendixes to waste management officials in the countries we
visited and asked them to review the drafts for accuracy and
completeness. These officials generally agreed with the information
contained in the appendixes and provided detailed suggestions for any
changes they considered necessary. We incorporated these changes, as
appropriate, in the report.
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10.1
We performed our work from June 1992 through March 1994 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. As noted,
further information about our scope and methodology appears in
appendix IX.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will
send copies to the Secretary of Energy and other interested parties.
We will make copies available to others on request.
Please contact me at (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any
questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
X.
Sincerely yours,
Victor S. Rezendes
Director, Energy and Science Issues
COMPARISON OF WASTE PROGRAMS
=========================================================== Appendix I
Nuclear-
generated
electricity Earliest Likely Unique
Count Number of in 1992 repository geologic featur
ry reactors (approx.) date medium Status es
----- ----------- ------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------
Canad 22 15% 2025 Granite Reviewing Provin
a concept ce of
Ontari
o has
20 of
Canada
's 22
reacto
rs
Franc 56 73% 2020 Granite or Developing Public
e clay concept opposi
tion
signif
icantl
y
slowed
progra
m
Germa 21 30% 2008 Salt Constructin Opposi
ny g tion
test from
facility state
may
affect
licens
ing
Japan 43 27% 2030 Not Searching Govern
selected for ment
site plans
to
increa
se use
of
nuclea
r
power
Swede 12 43% 2020 Crystalline Searching Waste
n rock for manage
site rs
plan
to use
long-
lived
copper
canist
er
Switz 5 40% 2020 Crystalline Searching Govern
erlan rock or for ment
d clay site would
prefer
to use
an
intern
ationa
l
reposi
tory
Unite 37 23% 2040 Not Delaying Govern
d selected decision ment
Kingd plans
om lower-
level
waste
reposi
tory
Unite 109 22% 2010 Tuff Constructin Federa
d g l law
State test design
s facility ated
candid
ate
site
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Developed by GAO from data provided primarily by foreign
officials. Data are as of June 1993.
THE CANADIAN WASTE PROGRAM
========================================================== Appendix II
The Canadians have developed a concept for disposing of highly
radioactive waste in a geologic repository but have not yet selected
a site or named an organization to build the facility.\8 Officials
envision that a repository will be built in a granite formation that
stretches over much of central and northern Canada. They have
developed a generic repository design, supported by data collected at
an underground laboratory, that will be tailored to suit the geology
once a site is selected. The Canadians have adequate storage
facilities at their nuclear reactors for spent fuel. Therefore, they
feel no urgency to dispose of the waste and do not plan to open a
repository before 2025.
In 1978, after several years of research, the Canadian government
launched its program for disposing of spent fuel. The government
originally intended to begin its repository program by searching for
a potential repository site, but it changed this approach when
initial site investigations met considerable opposition. Selection
of a site will not begin until the generic concept is reviewed
scientifically and publicly by an independent environmental
assessment panel, among others. Nuclear power provides about 15
percent of Canada's electricity--and about 50 percent of the
electricity generated in the province of Ontario. Because of its
reliance on nuclear power, Ontario is very involved with Canada's
waste management efforts and is the province most likely to host the
repository.
--------------------
\8 The information contained in appendixes II through VIII was
provided primarily by officials in the countries we visited. We
conducted interviews and obtained documentation when available, but
we did not audit each country's waste management program to verify
the accuracy and completeness of the information we received.
BACKGROUND
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1
Since the 1960s, Canada has used commercial nuclear power, most of
which is produced in the province of Ontario, where 20 of the
country's 22 nuclear reactors are located. Other Canadian provinces
rely primarily on hydro power generation to meet their electricity
demands and see little need for nuclear power. About 27 million
people live in Canada's 3.8 million square miles, creating a
population density of about 7 people per square mile.\9 Canada is
slightly larger than the United States in territory, but the United
States is nearly 10 times larger than Canada in population. With
about 10 million people, Ontario is the country's most populous
province. Canada is a confederation of 10 provinces and 2
territories that functions under a parliamentary system of
government.
In Ontario, several related political and economic issues are forcing
reconsideration of the province's reliance on nuclear power.
According to officials, these factors include (1) a 1990 change in
Ontario's political leadership, which led to a moratorium on the
construction of new nuclear power plants; (2) recent electricity rate
increases, spurred partially by higher-than-planned capital costs at
Canada's newest nuclear power plant; (3) a need for refurbishment at
some existing plants; and (4) a lower demand for electricity, which
is creating a surplus of electricity in Ontario. Officials also said
that no new orders for nuclear plants exist and none are expected.
Canada, which has one of the world's richest uranium deposits, does
not recycle, or reprocess, its spent fuel; rather, its nuclear
reactors use natural uranium in a once-through fuel cycle. Given its
abundant supply of uranium, Canada has no plans to reprocess its
spent fuel in the future. Canada's reactors are located at five
sites, three of which are in Ontario. The reactors are expected to
generate about 27,000 metric tons of spent fuel by the year 2000.
--------------------
\9 Demographic data for all country appendixes are from the Funk and
Wagnalls 1994 World Almanac and Book of Facts. Figures are rounded.
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2
STRATEGY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:2.1
The Canadians have developed a generic concept for disposing of spent
fuel in a deep geologic repository but have not yet selected a site
or named an organization to build the facility. Because they have
adequate facilities for storing spent fuel at the reactor sites, the
Canadians are not anxious to dispose of waste quickly and are
planning to take the time necessary to address the technical and
political factors involved in designing a disposal program.
According to government officials, the Canadian government began
studying waste disposal in the 1970s because the utilities had
planned only for waste storage. In 1977, an independent commission
reviewed various disposal options and concluded that disposal in a
deep geologic repository offered the best potential. The commission
reported that the Canadian Shield--a large granite rock deposit
stretching across much of Canada--was a stable geologic structure
that would be well suited for a repository. After the commission
issued its report, the Canadian federal government and the Ontario
provincial government announced that they would work together to
study waste disposal.
Vigorous opposition to initial site investigations forced Canada to
revise its plan for waste disposal. The government initially planned
to begin its investigation by establishing research sites at several
locations throughout Canada. However, members of the public strongly
protested against the site investigations. In response to the
opposition, the Canadian and the Ontario governments announced in
1981 that they would first develop a generic repository concept and
that the research sites involved would not necessarily become a
permanent repository. Only after the concept had been assessed,
reviewed, and accepted would a potential site be selected.
According to government officials, Canada's generic approach is
possible largely because the geology of the Canadian Shield is
homogeneous and is similar to the geology at an underground research
laboratory where the Canadians have conducted studies since the
1980s. Studies at this laboratory, which is located in the province
of Manitoba, will not use any nuclear waste, and officials do not
intend the laboratory to become a repository.
Some in Canada favor long-term, aboveground waste storage over deep
geologic disposal. For example, nuclear utility officials noted that
storing waste aboveground is less expensive than building and
operating a repository--which requires a large capital investment.
Environmental groups favor long-term storage because they remain
unconvinced of a repository's safety. They believe it would be
easier to monitor waste aboveground and more difficult to retrieve
waste from underground in the event of an emergency. Government
officials recognize the cost argument but believe that long-term,
aboveground storage presents an inappropriate burden on future
generations. They believe that one of the primary objectives of
waste disposal is to avoid burdening future generations, and for this
reason they expect that the government will ultimately decide to
build an underground repository.
ORGANIZATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:2.2
Since Canada is still researching a repository design and has not
selected a site, no organization has been named as responsible for
building and operating a repository. However, the nuclear utilities
will fund the effort from fees on electricity usage, and the
government will contribute to the funding because it also has some
waste to dispose of. Government officials said that the government
may ultimately allow a utility-owned organization to gain full
responsibility for the disposal program, but this decision has not
yet been made.
While waste management is considered the responsibility of the
utilities that create the waste, the federal government has had a
major role in waste disposal research thus far. Officials said the
Canadian government became involved with waste disposal because the
utilities had planned only for waste storage. Researching the
disposal concept is the responsibility of Atomic Energy of Canada
Limited (AECL), a corporation owned by the federal government that
also developed Canada's nuclear reactors. Ontario Hydro, a
provincially owned corporation and the nation's primary nuclear
utility, is also very involved with waste management research and
provides about half of AECL's funding. The remainder of AECL's
funding comes from the federal government. The Atomic Energy Control
Board, a federal agency, regulates the nuclear industry and will
ultimately license the repository. It is responsible for health,
safety, and security matters concerning nuclear energy. According to
government officials, the federal Ministry of Energy, Mines, and
Resources sets Canadian nuclear policy.
Like other projects that have an environmental impact, the repository
concept is being reviewed by an independent environmental assessment
panel. Appointed by the Minister of the Environment in 1989, the
members of this panel will consider the social aspects of repository
development as well as technical and scientific issues. The panel
estimates that it will provide its report to the government around
1996. On the basis of the report and other considerations, the
government will decide whether and how to proceed with siting and
developing the repository.
FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:2.3
If the government decides to proceed with the construction of a
repository, the nuclear utilities--primarily Ontario Hydro--will fund
the effort from fees collected on electricity use. The price of
Ontario Hydro's electricity includes the cost of storing spent fuel
and the estimated future costs of eventually transporting and
disposing of it. The federal government will probably also
contribute to the funding, since it owns some spent fuel. The
federal government is currently funding half of AECL's research
efforts, while the remainder of the funding comes from Ontario Hydro.
According to AECL officials, the government has agreed to fund half
of AECL's research through 1997, but funding after this time is
contingent upon the government's decisions about waste disposal.
To ensure that many views are heard, officials said that Canada
directs proponents of programs to provide funding for
"intervenors"--generally public interest groups--to allow their
participation during the process. For example, AECL has provided
funding to help groups prepare for public hearings on the repository
concept. Environmental group officials have criticized the level of
funding as insufficient.
WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL
APPROACH
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3
KEY ASPECTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:3.1
AECL has developed a generic design for a repository that would be
altered to suit a specific site and has been supported by data
obtained from its underground research facility. The repository
would be 500 to 1,000 meters deep in the granite of the Canadian
Shield. Used fuel would be encased in titanium or copper canisters
with a minimum life expectancy of 500 years; the canister material
has not yet been selected. Clay would be used to surround the
canisters, and a mixture of clay and other geological material would
fill the repository openings. Officials said that as the reference
design is altered to fit the characteristics of a specific site, it
may include a canister with a greater life expectancy, in part to
help alleviate public concern. Once sealed, the repository is
planned to be a passive system; it would not require monitoring,
maintenance, or control. Waste retrieval would be possible--although
difficult and expensive--for at least several hundred years while the
containers remained substantially intact. Because the province of
Ontario has most of Canada's nuclear reactors and nuclear waste, the
repository is expected to be sited in Ontario.
SCHEDULE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:3.2
According to Canadian officials, building a repository is not urgent
because Canada's spent fuel can easily be stored in existing
facilities at the reactor sites. Also, the officials said they would
spend the time necessary to gain as much public acceptance as
possible. Under the current tentative schedule, the government plans
to decide around 1996 whether and how to proceed with developing a
repository. A repository would then be available no earlier than
2025.
REGULATORY APPROACH
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:3.3
In reviewing an application for a repository license, Canadian
regulators said they would place the burden for proving the
repository's safety on the applicant--most likely the waste
producers. Regulatory officials said that they would avoid
prescriptive regulation dictating how safety should be ensured to
give the license applicant flexibility in designing the repository.
Also, too little is currently known about long-term geologic
processes to issue detailed performance standards, according to
Canadian regulators. Before issuing a license, the regulators will
review the argument, known as the safety case, put forth by the
operator and act as skeptics to ensure that the operator's plan will
meet general safety targets. Officials said this approach encourages
innovation by the operator instead of simply meeting regulatory
standards and avoids undue emphasis on less important features of the
repository design.
The regulatory agency has no decision-making role in the current
effort to develop a repository concept; however, it did issue general
guidance describing what it would ultimately consider important for
proving a repository's safety during the licensing process. The
regulators set a broad, quantitative radiation risk goal requiring
that the risk of death in affected populations not exceed 1 in 1
million per year during the first 10,000 years. After 10,000 years,
the risk must be shown qualitatively--the applicant must provide
"reasoned arguments"--that the radiation releases will not suddenly
change and acute risks will not be encountered by individuals.
Regulatory officials believe that requiring quantitative projections
of a repository's safety after 10,000 years is difficult and
inappropriate, primarily because of uncertainties about environmental
conditions, such as the possibility that an Ice Age may profoundly
change climatic and geologic conditions.
INTERIM STORAGE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:3.4
Canadian spent fuel is currently being stored primarily in pools at
the five reactor sites. Some fuel is moved from pools into dry
storage at the reactor sites. The Canadians plan to store waste for
several decades in order to allow the heat and radioactivity to
dissipate. Officials said that existing storage facilities at
nuclear plants can easily be expanded to accommodate additional wet
or dry storage if necessary. From its studies and testing, Ontario
Hydro has concluded that spent fuel can be stored safely in dry
storage containers for at least 100 years. A study of interim
storage in the 1970s concluded that on-site storage was preferable to
storage at a centralized facility because, among other things, waste
transportation would be avoided, and the infrastructure for operating
and monitoring was in place at the reactor sites.
The environmental assessment panel has included long-term,
aboveground storage in its scope of study and will examine this in
its report. Lower costs and easier monitoring and retrieving
capabilities are cited as benefits of extended aboveground storage.
THE FRENCH WASTE PROGRAM
========================================================= Appendix III
France relies heavily on nuclear power to satisfy its demand for
electricity and will likely build a deep geologic repository to
dispose of its highly radioactive waste. Nuclear power, which is
nationalized in France, supplies about 73 percent of France's
electricity--the highest percentage in the world. Because nuclear
power offers the best available option for energy independence,
France plans to continue relying heavily on it. France also
reprocesses its spent nuclear fuel to recover and recycle uranium and
plutonium in an effort to achieve energy self-sufficiency, and it
stores high-level wastes at its reprocessing sites. Yet despite its
dependence on and continued acceptance of nuclear energy, France has
encountered unexpected opposition to siting a repository. The French
had planned to investigate four sites in different geologic media and
then select one for an underground laboratory; however, strong public
opposition to preliminary site investigations caused the Prime
Minister to declare a moratorium on site investigations in 1990.
Late in 1991, the French Parliament passed legislation containing
three key provisions on nuclear waste disposal. First, for about 15
years, several concurrent research efforts are to be conducted,
including an examination of geologic disposal as well as an
exploration of waste storage and reduction methods. Second, the
French waste management agency was given greater autonomy from the
agency responsible for developing the nuclear industry; and third, a
policy of openness with the public was required to help alleviate
public concerns about high-level waste disposal. Because the
research is to continue until around 2007, the French do not
anticipate that a repository will be available until 2020 or later.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1
According to government officials, 54 of France's 56 reactors were
built between 1970 and 1990. France's first commercial nuclear
reactor began producing electricity in 1956, but France did not
become involved with nuclear energy in earnest until the early
1970s--the time of the energy crisis. At that time, France was
importing 75 percent of its energy resources. Because it lacks
sufficient quantities of domestic oil, natural gas, and coal, French
officials said, the country had no alternative but to use nuclear
power to gain energy independence. The French expect to build about
one new nuclear power plant per year through 2005. After 2005 the
pace may quicken when the oldest reactors have to be replaced;
however, French officials do not expect nuclear power to supply more
than 75 to 80 percent of France's electricity in the future.
Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel to recover and recycle the uranium
and plutonium helps the French attain the energy independence they
desire. Two reprocessing installations reprocess French spent
nuclear fuel. According to French officials, roughly two-thirds of
France's reprocessing work is domestic; the remaining third is for
foreign customers who are returned high-level waste upon the
completion of reprocessing. Reprocessing spent fuel reduces the
volume of highly radioactive waste but creates additional amounts of
lower-level waste. The French estimate that by the year 2000 they
will have accumulated approximately 2,000 cubic meters of high-level
waste and 88,000 cubic meters of lower-level reprocessing waste for
disposal.
France is nearly 221,000 square miles large--roughly twice the size
of Colorado--and has a population of about 57 million, or 259 people
per square mile--about 16 times Colorado's population. France is a
republic, consisting of 22 administrative regions, which are
subdivided into 95 departments. The republic includes an executive
branch with a president, prime minister, and cabinet; a legislative
branch with a bicameral parliament; and a judicial branch consisting
of a constitutional court. The energy industries, including the
nuclear energy industry, are owned and controlled by the French
government.
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2
STRATEGY
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.1
Though likely to construct a deep geologic repository to dispose of
highly radioactive waste, France recently slowed its program in
response to strong public opposition. In 1987, the French began
initial investigations for an underground laboratory at four
candidate sites but met significant opposition at three of the sites.
According to French officials, the opposition came not only from
local citizens living near the sites but also from other French
communities and international environmental groups. Officials
speculated that the government may have been overconfident after
gaining public acceptance for a low-level waste disposal facility.
As a result, the government did not fully address the concerns of the
affected public, many of whom believed the facility was being forced
on them with no advantages or compensation.
Concerned about this unexpected, vigorous opposition, the Prime
Minister intervened in 1990 and imposed a moratorium on
investigations for a geologic repository for highly radioactive
waste. Ultimately, according to officials, the opposition led the
Parliament to enact legislation in 1991 signaling the government's
willingness to take additional time to thoroughly investigate waste
disposal and to gain acceptance from the French public. Although the
legislation requires research into various waste management methods,
French officials said the results of this research are not expected
to preclude the need for a geologic repository.
Although the central government generally establishes French nuclear
policy, the Parliament assumed a more active role in waste management
issues when it enacted the 1991 legislation. This legislation had
three key provisions, according to French officials. First, several
concurrent research efforts are to be conducted until around 2007.
Researchers are to examine options for retrievable or nonretrievable
disposal in deep geologic formations by constructing underground
laboratories. Also, researchers are to explore methods to lower the
volumes and radioactivity of highly radioactive waste through
separation and transmutation\10 and to study methods for long-term
waste storage on the surface. Second, the legislation reorganized
the French waste management program, making the waste management
agency independent of the Atomic Energy Commission. Finally, the
legislation dictated a policy of openness with the public to help
alleviate public concerns about high-level waste disposal.
The measures dealing with openness in the legislation require that
information be available to potentially affected populations. For
example, the newly created National Review Board will report annually
to the Parliament on the progress of the research dictated by the
legislation, and the report will be made public. According to
officials, France also plans to employ a prominent person, probably
from the Parliament, to open a dialogue with populations in the areas
where a deep geologic repository may be located. After the research
required by this legislation has been completed, the Parliament
appears to plan to play a central role in final decisions about waste
management.
--------------------
\10 Through separation and transmutation, long-lived radioactive
elements are changed into shorter-lived elements.
ORGANIZATION
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.2
The French government is responsible for waste management policy,
regulations, and control, as well as for authorizing and licensing
waste disposal sites. The waste producers--primarily the French
national electric utility, Electricit� de France--are to perform all
necessary operations to produce a waste form suitable for disposal
and to pay for disposal efforts. Because its energy industries are
nationalized, France exercises strong central control over its energy
agencies and companies.
The National Radioactive Waste Management Agency (ANDRA) is
responsible for designing, siting, constructing, and operating
long-term disposal facilities, as well as for undertaking all
necessary studies to this end. Created in 1979, ANDRA is a
government agency and was separated under the 1991 legislation from
its parent organization, the Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), to give
ANDRA increased independence and stature within the French
government. French officials supported this move and believed it
would help alleviate public concerns about the potential conflict of
interest between ANDRA and the Commission, which is viewed as a
promoter of nuclear energy. Another major organization involved with
nuclear wastes is Cogema. Established in 1976 as an industrial firm
wholly owned by CEA, Cogema is a government corporation that operates
reprocessing and high-level waste storage facilities at Marcoule and
La Hague.
Other agencies are involved with regulating nuclear installations.
Within the Ministry of Industry and International Trade, the Nuclear
Installations Safety Directorate has issued general safety guidance
and objectives for the repository. The Institute for Nuclear
Protection and Safety, part of the CEA, provides technical support.
The Central Service for Protection against Ionizing Radiation, under
the Secretary of Health, among other things, monitors radioactivity
in the environment and has the right to veto any construction or
operating license for nuclear facilities. Licensing nuclear
installations, including waste disposal sites, involves all major
departments concerned. Licenses are generally signed by the Prime
Minister.
FUNDING
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.3
ANDRA is generally financed by waste producers, mainly the utility,
CEA, and Cogema. Costs for managing highly radioactive wastes up to
the point of disposal are the responsibility of the waste generator.
Then, ANDRA charges the costs of developing a geologic disposal
system to the prospective generators according to the space they have
reserved for disposing of waste. CEA also conducts and funds some
waste research efforts.
WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL
APPROACH
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3
KEY ASPECTS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3.1
France has not yet chosen a repository design for its highly
radioactive wastes. Although firm specifications and criteria are
yet to be established, a complementary multiple-barrier system is
generally envisioned for the repository. This system would include a
canister containing the waste, a backfill material surrounding the
canister and filling the repository tunnels, and the geology, which
would serve as the final barrier to the release of radiation. The
system's actual design will depend on the chosen geology and
site-specific information. ANDRA officials believe that a long-lived
waste canister might help gain public acceptance; however such a
canister might be more than is technically necessary to demonstrate
the repository's safety. Researchers are also considering placing a
surrounding wrap, known as an overpack, on the waste canisters to
help make them retrievable.
Originally, the French were considering four types of geology--clay,
granite, schist, and salt--for siting a repository. Now they are
primarily considering granite and clay. As required under the 1991
legislation, ANDRA plans to conduct studies at underground
laboratories. The French plan to select two sites with the
assistance of a negotiator, who will work with the local populations
to try to ensure public support.
SCHEDULE
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3.2
Before the 1990 moratorium on geological site investigations, France
planned to have an underground research laboratory in the 1990s and a
repository operating in 2010, assuming favorable results from the
laboratory investigations. The moratorium and subsequent legislation
requiring 15 years of research into alternatives have substantially
slowed the program. ANDRA officials believe that it will be at least
2020 before a French repository is available. They are not in a
hurry to develop a repository and want to minimize the French
public's concerns. Because France has adequate capacity for storing
its wastes, developing a repository is not urgent. However,
officials do not want to delay the repository's development too long
because costs are likely to mount with time and the officials are
reluctant to put off the responsibility for other generations to
address.
REGULATORY APPROACH
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3.3
In June 1991, the French regulators established the Basic Safety Rule
defining the objectives to be adopted in the design and construction
of a geologic repository. The basic objective is that the repository
ensure human and environmental protection in the long and short term.
Radiation exposure to individuals must be limited to .25
millisievert\11 per year for extended exposure associated with
certain or probable events. This limit must be demonstrated through
modeling for the first 10,000 years that the repository is to be in
operation. Quantitative predictions of repository releases after
10,000 years are more difficult because the geologic barrier may be
less stable; thus, the rule also allows qualitative predictions of
releases after that time.
French officials said they avoid prescriptive, detailed regulations
dictating how general safety goals should be met. They believe this
approach gives the applicant for a license the flexibility to meet
the general safety goal and focuses the responsibility on the
applicant for designing a safe system. ANDRA is responsible for
setting the specifications for the system of barriers--the waste
packages themselves and the site-engineered barriers--and for
ensuring that the safety standards established by the regulators are
correctly observed. Safety regulators have given ANDRA several
scenarios that it must address in developing its safety arguments
before proceeding with the repository's development.
--------------------
\11 A millisievert is a measure of radiation energy absorbed.
INTERIM STORAGE
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3.4
Most of France's spent fuel is stored first at reactor sites in pools
for about a year and then in facilities located at the reprocessing
plants until it is reprocessed. Spent fuel is transported to the
reprocessing plants in specially designed casks. Transport is
primarily by rail within France and continental Europe; trucks are
used for short hauls, and ships transport spent fuel from countries
outside the continent, such as Japan. The resultant high-level waste
from reprocessing is immobilized in glass and will be stored for 30
years or more in vaults at the reprocessing facilities.
According to government officials, lack of storage is not an issue in
France. Volumes of high-level waste are not large and can easily be
stored in existing facilities at reprocessing plants until a
repository is developed. If necessary, officials said, additional
storage facilities could easily be built at the La Hague reprocessing
plant and at reactor sites.
THE GERMAN WASTE PROGRAM
========================================================== Appendix IV
Germany is testing the suitability of a salt formation near the town
of Gorleben as a deep geologic repository for high-level waste. If
the site proves satisfactory, Germany plans to begin depositing
high-level waste for final disposal in 2008. However, Germany has
faced considerable opposition to its nuclear power and waste
facilities. When the Gorleben site was selected in the 1970s, the
Lower Saxony state government--which will license the
repository--welcomed the facility. Since then, however, the state
government has changed and is now opposed to nuclear power.
Government officials expect that, if still in power at the time of
licensing, the current state government will deny the repository's
license or prolong the licensing procedure indefinitely. A recent
report indicates that, partly because of opposition, Germany may be
reconsidering the Gorleben project in favor of long-term storage and
the exploration of other potential repository sites.
Under German law, nuclear power plant operators must demonstrate
plans for waste management 6 years into the future before nuclear
plants are allowed to continue operating. The German utilities have
responded by sending their spent fuel abroad for reprocessing. In
the future, however, the utilities may choose to store their spent
fuel for a period of time before disposing of it in a repository.
BACKGROUND
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:1
During 1992, nuclear power provided about 30 percent of Germany's
electricity. The country's 21 nuclear reactors are located at 18
sites and are expected to generate 3,300 cubic meters of high-level
waste by the year 2000. According to government officials, Germany's
use of nuclear power, begun in the 1950s, is not expected to increase
in the near future, mainly because of the utilities' concerns over
high costs and public opposition. The officials also said that if
nuclear power is to continue in Germany, new plants must be
constructed, starting in the late 1990s, to replace the plants that
are aging. However, no new plants are currently planned or under
construction. Germany has few natural resources except for coal and
relies on imports for oil.
The German utilities have contracted with British and French firms
for reprocessing services. However, the utilities may choose to
store their spent fuel rather than reprocess it in the future.
Government officials said that utilities now favor disposing of spent
fuel over reprocessing because disposal is currently less expensive.
German environmental groups also oppose reprocessing because it
creates additional volumes of lower-level waste.
About 80 million people live in Germany's 138,000 square miles, or
about 583 people per square mile. Germany is slightly larger than
New Mexico in territory and significantly larger in population--New
Mexico contains 1.6 million people. Germany is made up of 16
laender, or states, and is a federal republic.
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2
STRATEGY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:2.1
The Germans are studying the suitability of a salt formation near the
town of Gorleben as a deep geologic waste repository. If the site
proves acceptable, they plan to construct a repository and begin
accepting waste at the facility in 2008. The Germans have a long
history of experience with salt mining and have also conducted
various studies of salt in an underground laboratory since the 1960s.
Given the nation's experience and the abundance of salt deposits in
Germany, the German government decided in the 1970s to move forward
with the development of a salt repository, according to officials.
Two other repositories--one under construction and one already
built--will be used for storing lower levels of waste. Once these
facilities are full, all types of nuclear waste will be stored at
Gorleben. Officials said that the German government favors moving
waste into deep geologic repositories as soon as technically possible
because it considers repositories the safest place for waste
disposal.
Germany has faced considerable opposition to its nuclear power and
waste facilities. According to officials, when the Gorleben site was
proposed in the 1970s, the Lower Saxony state government welcomed the
facility and the economic benefits it would bring. Since then,
however, the Lower Saxony government has changed, and it now opposes
nuclear power. Lower Saxony will be responsible for licensing the
repository and, if the ruling government remains in power, is
expected to deny the license or prolong the licensing procedure
indefinitely. A nuclear trade journal recently reported that Germany
may abandon the Gorleben project, partly because of opposition. The
article suggested that Germany may opt to store its spent fuel while
exploring alternative repository sites.
The German government also encountered substantial public
demonstrations--involving thousands of protesters, according to
government officials--when the Gorleben project began in the late
1970s and early 1980s. Officials said that more recent
demonstrations have focused on interim storage facilities and
lower-level waste repositories. The public also opposed the
construction of a reprocessing facility by German utilities. The
utilities ultimately abandoned the unused reprocessing facility
largely because of the high costs of meeting Germany's strict safety
standards, which were enacted in part to alleviate public concerns.
To help gain public acceptance, the government has incorporated
public hearings into the licensing process, established a visitors'
center at Gorleben, and published information on its activities in
the nuclear area.
German nuclear policy is implemented at both the federal and state
levels. German law requires nuclear power plant operators to
demonstrate plans for waste management (e.g., reprocessing, interim
storage) 6 years into the future before nuclear plants are allowed to
continue operating.
ORGANIZATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:2.2
Government officials said that Germany's Atomic Energy Act made the
federal government responsible for radioactive waste disposal because
of the potential long-term danger involved. In fulfilling its
responsibility, the federal government founded the Federal Office for
Radiation Protection and contracted with a private company to
construct and operate the potential repository at Gorleben. This
Office is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Ministry for the
Environment, Nature Protection, and Reactor Safety. The Federal
Ministry for Research and Technology is also involved with research
in nuclear waste storage and disposal.
Although the federal government is ultimately responsible for waste
disposal, the state governments serve as the licensing authorities
for all nuclear waste repositories. For the Gorleben repository, the
state of Lower Saxony is the licensing authority and can deny the
license on technical grounds. However, the federal government has
the authority to overrule a state's licensing decision if it deems
such action appropriate. Officials said that the federal government
may, for example, direct a state to license a nuclear facility if the
state's objections are political rather than technical. According to
an official, the federal government recently used this power to force
Lower Saxony to proceed with the licensing process of a lower-level
waste repository.
German utilities are responsible for the management of spent fuel and
waste through reprocessing, treatment, and on-site storage.
Officials said that the utilities are owned by a mixture of private
interests and state and local governments.
FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:2.3
The nuclear utilities are funding the construction of the facility at
Gorleben, but the German federal government has funded some waste
disposal research. Nuclear power producers pay current costs by
reimbursing the government for its efforts, and they accumulate
reserves to cover future waste disposal costs.
WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL
APPROACH
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:3
KEY ASPECTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:3.1
The Germans have used their long experience with salt formations to
develop a repository concept. Under the current program, the geology
at Gorleben--a salt dome--will be the primary barrier against the
release of radiation. Over time, the salt will move, thus
encapsulating and containing the waste. The planned steel and
cast-iron canisters will therefore provide little long-term
containment but will merely contain the waste until the salt moves
around them. The repository concept accommodates both reprocessed
high-level waste and used fuel. The Germans do not plan to recover
the waste once it has been disposed of, so they have not incorporated
postclosure retrievability into their design.
The Germans said they plan to store highly radioactive waste 30 to 40
years before disposing of it in a repository. According to German
government officials, storing the waste allows it to cool and will
enable the Germans to maintain a temperature in the repository under
200 degrees Centigrade; temperatures above this level could adversely
affect the salt. For example, high temperatures could cause the salt
dome to shift and rise excessively, causing dangerous fractures.
SCHEDULE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:3.2
Site investigations for the test facility at Gorleben began in 1979.
Drilling began in the 1980s but was interrupted for 20 months during
1987 and 1988 when a shaft collapsed. German officials said they
expect to conduct testing until the late 1990s. If the tests are
positive, the Germans said they hope to open Gorleben in 2008 for
accepting high-level waste. A recent report, however, indicated that
because the German utilities plan to expand their interim storage
capacity for spent fuel, a repository would not be required until
after 2035.
REGULATORY APPROACH
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:3.3
The Minister for the Environment of Lower Saxony will decide whether
to license the Gorleben facility after reviewing the repository plans
and conducting public hearings. According to officials, the
repository will be allowed to cause a radiation dose of no more than
0.3 millisieverts at the land surface. The German regulators are
developing fairly detailed safety requirements that the repository
will be required to meet. A regulatory official said these
requirements are necessary to help ensure the repository's safety
over long time periods.
The repository's safety must be demonstrated by a site-specific
safety assessment. After the repository's closure, possible exposure
to radiation from disposed waste must be kept within the range of
natural radiation dose rates for a period of about 10,000 years.
However, the safety assessment must provide assurances that the
quality of the entire repository system will be maintained for a
longer period.
INTERIM STORAGE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:3.4
Interim storage of spent fuel and waste from reprocessing is the
responsibility of the utilities. Spent fuel is currently being
stored in pools at 18 reactor sites throughout Germany or in interim
dry storage facilities or at reprocessing facilities in France and
the United Kingdom. The highly radioactive waste remaining after
reprocessing is scheduled to be returned to Germany beginning in
1994. The Germans plan to cool their waste by storing it for 30 to
40 years before disposing of it to help avoid elevating the
temperature in the repository and perhaps damaging the salt
formation. Spent fuel and reprocessed waste are transported between
Germany and the reprocessing facilities by train, truck, and ship.
The German utilities have constructed two interim dry storage
facilities (in Gorleben and Ahaus) for spent fuel and reprocessed
waste returned from abroad. According to a recent report, the
utilities plan to expand their interim storage capacity for spent
fuel. Near the Gorleben storage site, the utilities are also
building a test facility for preparing, or conditioning, spent fuel
for interim storage and final disposal. After conditioning, the
spent fuel can be shipped and stored in an interim facility and then
disposed of in a repository.
According to German officials, German environmental groups have
protested the plans for using interim storage facilities for spent
fuel. One environmental group advocates storage at the reactors
because it believes this is less dangerous than central storage and
reduces the number of nuclear facilities needed. Also, the group
believes that once reactor storage capacities are full, the plants
will be forced to cease production.
THE JAPANESE WASTE PROGRAM
=========================================================== Appendix V
The Japanese plan to build a deep geologic repository for high-level
waste and are in the second of four stages begun in 1976 and designed
to accomplish this goal. During this stage, the Japanese plan to
select potential candidate sites for the repository. Next, they plan
to build demonstration facilities at one or more sites before
entering the final stage of constructing and operating the
repository. However, an organization has not yet been named as
responsible for the repository's construction and operation.
Officials said that because they plan to store their waste for 30 to
50 years to allow it to cool before disposal, they sense no immediate
urgency to dispose of it and do not anticipate the need for a
repository until 2030 or later.
Nuclear power offers Japan, a country with limited indigenous energy
sources, relative energy independence. According to government
officials, approximately 80 percent of Japan's energy resources are
imported. By recycling, or reprocessing, its used nuclear fuel,
Japan is able to reduce its dependence on imported energy sources.
Thus, the Japanese view spent fuel as an energy resource rather than
as waste, and they plan to construct a domestic facility to reprocess
it. They also plan to nearly double the number of nuclear power
plants by the year 2010.
BACKGROUND
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1
Japan plans to increase its reliance on nuclear power over the next
few decades in a continuing attempt to improve the country's energy
independence. Japan began its nuclear power program in the mid-1950s
and relies on nuclear power for about 27 percent of its electricity.
By the year 2000, Japan expects nuclear power plants to produce about
35 percent of its total electricity; by 2010, it expects nuclear
power to produce 43 percent of the country's total electricity. To
meet these targets, officials said Japan will need to build about 40
nuclear plants in addition to the 43 that are currently operating.
As part of their move toward energy independence, the Japanese plan
to build a facility for reprocessing spent fuel from their nuclear
power plants so that the recovered uranium and plutonium can be used
as fresh reactor fuel. According to officials, the reprocessing
facility is scheduled to begin operating by the year 2000. The
Japanese have built a small reprocessing plant that will be used
primarily for research and development once the larger plant is
opened. Until the larger reprocessing facility is completed, most
Japanese spent fuel is being shipped to France and Britain for
reprocessing in these countries.
Japan is roughly 146,000 square miles large and has a population of
nearly 125 million people, or 830 people per square mile. The
country is slightly smaller than California but has a population
about four times as large. Japan is divided into 47 prefectures and
functions under a parliamentary democracy.
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2
STRATEGY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2.1
The Japanese reprocess their spent fuel and plan to store the
resultant high-level waste for 30 to 50 years before ultimately
disposing of it in a deep geologic repository. Because they plan to
store their waste for a long term, the Japanese said they feel no
urgency about developing a repository and have established a
four-phase plan for waste disposal. During the first stage, from
1976 to 1984, they studied potentially feasible geologic formations
and concluded that any type of formation would be reasonably possible
for a deep repository. Now in the second stage, begun in 1985, they
are selecting possible candidate sites. Once they have selected one
or more sites, they will demonstrate safety at the site(s) during the
third stage, and during the fourth stage, they will build and operate
a repository. The Japanese are also studying partitioning and
transmutation, which would change long-lived, highly radioactive
waste into shorter-lived elements. However, these remaining elements
would still be dangerous and would require disposal.
Japan has met some opposition to its nuclear facilities and policies.
In 1993, the return of Japanese plutonium from a reprocessing
facility in France received international attention from those
concerned with, among other things, the safety of transporting highly
radioactive elements over the sea. According to officials, the
Japanese government and nuclear utilities attempt to avoid
confrontation with affected local communities by providing them with
subsidies for infrastructure improvements and public works projects.
Japanese officials said that, if necessary, they would spend 10 to 15
years working to gain public support before moving ahead with the
licensing process for a nuclear facility.
ORGANIZATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2.2
The Japanese central government is primarily responsible for
high-level waste research. The disposal of high-level waste is
addressed under the auspices of the government's Science and
Technology Agency. Research and development is being led by a
quasi-governmental organization, the Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel
Development Corporation of Japan. Other organizations, such as the
Japanese Atomic Energy Institute and the Geological Survey of Japan,
are also involved in research. Japan's nuclear policy is generally
formulated by the Atomic Energy Commission and the Nuclear Safety
Commission, two bodies that advise the Prime Minister.
The organization for implementing waste disposal has not yet been
named. This organization will be responsible for selecting the site
and constructing the repository. Officials said that some questions
remain as to exactly what the roles and responsibilities of
government and industry will be within this organization. Japanese
officials believe the privately owned utilities may be involved in
constructing and operating the repository as well as in funding it.
Other government agencies, such as the Ministry of International
Trade and Industry, implement Japan's nuclear policies. Underground
waste disposal facilities would be licensed by the Office of the
Prime Minister following a review of an operating and safety plan by
the Director-General of the Science and Technology Agency.
FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2.3
The Japanese government funds nuclear research and development, but
the utilities will fund the waste's storage and ultimate disposal.
WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL
APPROACH
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3
KEY ASPECTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3.1
The Japanese have not decided on the specific details of their
repository's design, but they envision using a multibarrier approach.
Partly because of difficult geologic conditions, the Japanese are
studying the use of long-lived engineered barriers in their
repository design, such as a thick canister overpack (surrounding
wrap) and a clay backfill.
The Japanese are developing a generic repository design that could be
located in a variety of geologic formations throughout Japan. In
siting the repository, the Japanese plan to emphasize finding a site
that is acceptable to the public as well as technically suitable.
They also plan to construct a demonstration facility at the site,
which they hope will help assure the public of the repository's
safety.
SCHEDULE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3.2
Because the Japanese plan to store their waste for 30 to 50 years
before disposal, officials said they sense no immediate urgency to
dispose of the waste. According to government officials, their
tentative milestones are to select a potential repository site by the
year 2000, construct a demonstration facility at the selected site,
and then build a repository by 2030 or 2040.
REGULATORY APPROACH
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3.3
The Japanese have not yet developed safety standards for disposing of
high-level waste. Japanese researchers believe that the absence of
specific regulation is appropriate for the research phase of a
repository program because it allows the flexibility needed to find
the optimal solutions for waste disposal problems. In the meantime,
Japan's research program is proceeding in accordance with Japanese
environmental standards for releases of radioactive materials and the
general standards for repository performance from international
nuclear energy organizations.
INTERIM STORAGE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3.4
After initial storage in pools at the reactors, most Japanese spent
fuel is shipped abroad for reprocessing. Japan's nuclear plants are
located at coastal sites, so most spent fuel and high-level waste are
transported by ship. The Japanese plan to open an interim storage
facility near the future reprocessing plant, which will store
reprocessed waste returned from France and the United Kingdom. The
storage facility is scheduled to open in 1995 and can be expanded, if
necessary. The Japanese plan to store the waste for 30 to 50 years
before disposing of it in order to reduce its heat and radioactivity.
THE SWEDISH WASTE PROGRAM
========================================================== Appendix VI
Sweden plans to construct a deep geologic repository to dispose of
highly radioactive waste but has not yet selected a site for the
facility. The Swedish nuclear waste program has been framed to a
large extent by two requirements: (1) that nuclear utilities
demonstrate a safe disposal plan before new reactors be licensed and
(2) that nuclear power be phased out by 2010. In view of these
requirements, Sweden has developed a disposal concept and anticipates
a relatively small, finite amount of waste. A little larger than
California, Sweden has 12 nuclear power reactors at four sites on its
seacoast, which provide roughly half of the country's electricity.
Because Sweden relies so heavily on nuclear power and has limited
energy options, many question whether it will be able to develop
alternative energy sources by 2010.
The Swedish nuclear utilities--under a combination of private and
government ownership--are responsible for all aspects of managing
nuclear waste, including storing and transporting the waste,
developing safe disposal options, and funding and setting time frames
for the disposal program. In fulfilling their responsibilities, the
utilities developed the concept of a long-lived waste container to be
placed deep in the crystalline rock found in much of Sweden. The
container is expected not only to resist corrosion in Sweden's
geology for 1 million years but also to help gain public acceptance
for the repository. Wastes are stored temporarily at the reactors,
then transported by ship to a central underground storage facility
opened in 1985 near one of the four nuclear plant sites. The wastes
are to be cooled there for 30 to 40 years and then, in an on-site
facility to be operational around 2006, prepared for disposal in a
repository. Given a nonbinding target date of 2020 for an
operational underground repository, Sweden is currently searching for
a potential repository site.
BACKGROUND
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:1
Sweden's population depends on nuclear power for a large percentage
of its electricity. About 8.6 million people live in Sweden's
roughly 170,000 square miles, or about 49 people per square mile.
Sweden has slightly more territory than California but roughly
one-quarter as many people. During 1992, 12 nuclear power reactors
located at four sites along Sweden's seacoast generated about 43
percent of the country's electricity; officials said that this figure
generally averages 50 percent. The reactors are expected to generate
about 5,600 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel by the year 2000 and
about 7,800 metric tons by 2010, when nuclear power is scheduled to
be phased out. Sweden's first commercial reactor began operating in
1972, and the last one began operating in 1985. Under a
constitutional monarchy, Sweden has a monarch, a prime minister, and
a unicameral (one-chamber) parliament. The country is divided into
24 provinces.
Public opposition to nuclear power has played a significant part in
shaping Sweden's nuclear waste policy. The 1979 accident at the
Three Mile Island nuclear plant in the United States prompted a
national referendum in Sweden in 1980 that put the issue of
continuing to rely on nuclear power to a direct popular vote. On the
basis of the referendum's results, Parliament decided to phase out
nuclear power by 2010. This planned phaseout signals the end of
Swedish nuclear power and gives Sweden, unlike countries with
continuing nuclear programs, a finite amount of waste to dispose of.
Despite the phaseout policy, many believe that nuclear power will
continue beyond 2010 because Sweden relies on nuclear power for
nearly half of its electricity and at present has few alternatives.
Sweden uses mainly hydro power to satisfy its remaining demand for
electricity but has limits on water resources and faces strict carbon
dioxide emission standards. Officials said that debate currently
centers on whether existing nuclear plants should be allowed to
operate until the end of their useful lives. No new nuclear plants
are planned, however, and many Swedish officials told us they believe
that nuclear power will eventually end in Sweden, although perhaps
later than 2010.
According to officials, Sweden initially intended to reprocess its
spent fuel but revised its plans because of concerns about plutonium
proliferation and the costs associated with reprocessing.
Previously, Sweden had contracted for reprocessing services with both
the United Kingdom and France and had shipped some of its spent fuel
to these countries. Agreements have been reached so that the waste
produced by reprocessing this spent fuel will not be returned to
Sweden; therefore, Sweden will not have to handle and dispose of both
spent fuel and reprocessed waste.
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:2
STRATEGY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:2.1
Sweden plans to dispose of its spent fuel in a deep geologic
repository and is searching for a suitable repository site. Swedish
nuclear waste policy is based on the premise that the utilities that
create the waste are responsible for managing and disposing of it
safely. In 1977, the government required nuclear utilities to
demonstrate a safe method for disposing of spent fuel before it would
license new nuclear plants for operation. To satisfy this law, the
utilities developed a concept for disposing of spent fuel that
involves burying the waste in long-lived containers deep in the
Swedish crystalline rock.
Sweden decided to develop a generic repository concept before
selecting a candidate site. Because the geology throughout the
country is similar, officials believe that the repository could be
located almost anywhere. This repository concept is also based on
extensive research conducted by Sweden and other countries at a
Swedish underground laboratory sponsored for about 10 years by the
Nuclear Energy Agency. A second underground laboratory will be used
for further investigations.
ORGANIZATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:2.2
Sweden's four utilities are owned by a mixture of government and
private interests. Some reactors are owned by the central
government, while others are owned by private companies, in which
several Swedish cities or the central government are large
shareholders. Swedish utilities bear the costs and responsibility
for the safely handling and disposing of radioactive waste from
nuclear power operations. The 1977 Stipulation Act tied the
operation of new plants to the demonstration of safe waste disposal
methods. To address these responsibilities, the four Swedish nuclear
utilities formed the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management
Company (SKB), which plans, builds and operates nuclear waste
facilities. SKB submits its research plans to the government for
review every 3 years to ensure that the research is appropriate to
meet the goal of developing a safe repository.
The Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate (SKI), which reports to the
Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources, regulates the
nuclear industry. The Swedish Radiation Protection Institute, which
also reports to the Ministry of the Environment and Natural
Resources, sets radiation dose limits. The Swedish Parliament sets
general nuclear policy.
FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:2.3
SKB's efforts are funded through a levy on electricity, and funds are
currently accumulating in a government-administered waste management
fund. SKI collects funds from the utilities at a set rate per
kilowatt hour of nuclear electricity produced. The fund is to cover
all costs for managing spent fuel off the plant premises and for
decommissioning the plants. SKB is reimbursed from the fund by SKI,
which reviews and authorizes SKB's request before recommending that
the government provide the funds.
WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL
APPROACH
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:3
KEY ASPECTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:3.1
Sweden has developed a repository concept that will be refined once a
site is selected and site investigations occur. Containment in
long-lived canisters and disposal in crystalline rock was selected as
the best way to show how and where the waste could safely be disposed
of.
Sweden plans to use a "robust" copper and steel canister to contain
and isolate the waste for over 1 million years, thus emphasizing the
engineered barrier in its multibarrier approach to its repository.
SKB believes a strong engineered barrier is critical to demonstrating
safety and gaining public support. Sweden's repository will become
saturated with water after closure. Sweden chose a copper canister
because it will resist corrosion in the expected chemical conditions.
These canisters--about 5,500 of them--will be placed approximately
500 meters deep in the crystalline bedrock common to many areas of
the country. Each canister will be surrounded by hard-packed
bentonite clay, and the repository will be sealed by backfilling
tunnels and shafts with a mixture of bentonite and sand. The
groundwater is expected to cause the clay to swell and fill up the
space between the canisters and the rock. The rock will serve to
contain waste only if the container fails. Once sealed, the
repository is not expected to require monitoring. The canisters
could be retrieved in the future, although with some difficulty.
In selecting a site, SKB will try to find a location where a facility
will be acceptable to the local population. Local areas have strong
veto powers over nuclear facilities in Sweden, and SKB officials said
they wish to avoid resistance and a veto. To locate a willing host
for the repository, SKB has canvassed all local areas in the country
to seek volunteers. If a volunteer cannot be found, some have
speculated, the repository may be built near an existing nuclear
facility where the public already accept nuclear facilities.
Similarly, SKB has built its lower-level nuclear waste facility and
interim storage facility near existing nuclear power plants.
SKB officials believe that demonstrating the success of the
repository design in a planned demonstration facility will be
important to gaining public acceptance. Once a site is chosen, SKB
plans to build a facility to demonstrate the safety of disposal
methods. Scheduled to begin around 2008, the demonstration facility
will contain approximately 5 to 10 percent of the country's wastes.
If this effort is deemed successful, the repository will then open
for full-scale waste disposal operations.
SCHEDULE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:3.2
The repository milestones established by SKB are considered flexible.
SKB officials said that because Sweden has adequate storage capacity,
no technical urgency exists to dispose of the waste. The program's
tentative milestones include the following:
Select a potential site and begin characterizing it (1997).
Begin emplacing waste samples in the laboratory (2008).
Begin constructing a repository (2010).
Begin operating a repository (2020).
REGULATORY APPROACH
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:3.3
Although SKB is responsible for demonstrating the safety of the
repository, the repository must meet general safety goals established
by the government. According to SKB, the repository must (1) prevent
doses exceeding 0.1 millisievert per year now and in the future,
irrespective of national boundaries, and (2) limit the resultant risk
of death to affected groups from unusual events or accidents to less
than the risk posed by a dose of 0.1 millisievert per year. Swedish
officials said that too little is known about how events such as
another Ice Age would affect the repository to allow quantitative
predictions after 10,000 years, so beyond this time period,
qualitative safety arguments may be used.
Swedish regulators said they do not intend to dictate how SKB should
meet the safety goals. They believe it is appropriate to allow the
utilities--which are ultimately responsible for nuclear safety under
Swedish law--the flexibility to meet technical challenges as they
occur. SKB develops and carries out the research and development
program, which is submitted every third year to SKI. SKI reviews the
program to see that it fulfills legislative requirements and moves
toward the established safety goals; then SKI forwards the program to
the government for approval.
INTERIM STORAGE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:3.4
Highly radioactive spent fuel is initially stored in pools at reactor
sites for 1 to 5 years and then shipped to Sweden's central interim
storage facility located adjacent to an existing nuclear plant. A
government-appointed parliamentary committee proposed interim storage
in the mid-1970s to allow time to resolve final waste management
plans. Because temporary storage facilities at the nuclear reactors
were going to be full by the mid-1980s, SKB built a central storage
facility adjacent to the nuclear power plant at Oskarshamn. Opened
in 1985, the underground facility will store all of Sweden's spent
fuel in pools of water for 30 to 40 years--allowing the waste to cool
before it is placed in a repository. Sweden studied storage times
ranging from 10 to 100 years and discovered little technical
difference; officials said the repository's design could be adjusted
to accommodate the various temperatures. Cooling the waste, however,
does make the repository design simpler and repository volume
smaller. Used fuel is transported from the coastal reactor sites to
the storage facility in a specially designed ship.
The storage facility holds spent fuel underground in pools of water.
Studies estimated that underground storage would cost approximately
the same as aboveground storage. Sweden chose wet (pool) storage
because it was the best technology available. However, Swedish
officials said that, had the decision been made in the 1990s, they
might have built a dry storage facility because such facilities are
generally less expensive. The interim storage facility will be
expanded to allow the entire Swedish inventory of spent fuel to be
stored in one location after nuclear power plants are shut down. At
the storage facility site, Sweden also plans to build a plant for
encapsulating spent fuel in the copper and steel canisters in
preparation for disposal in the repository. It expects the
encapsulation facility to be operational in 2006, at the earliest.
THE SWISS WASTE PROGRAM
========================================================= Appendix VII
Switzerland is studying crystalline rock and clay formations to
determine the feasibility of using them as a geologic repository for
highly radioactive wastes. If possible, Switzerland would prefer to
dispose of its relatively low volume of waste abroad in an
international repository, primarily because this alternative would be
more economical than building a domestic facility. However,
Switzerland recognizes that an international repository is highly
unlikely under the current political environment, so it is planning
to build its own repository. If Switzerland moves ahead with a
repository, the waste management organization plans to propose a site
by the year 2000, construct an underground laboratory on the site,
and open a repository sometime after 2020.
The Swiss government stipulated in 1978 that existing nuclear plants
could not continue operating beyond 1985, nor could the future
development of nuclear energy occur until the permanent safe disposal
of waste could be demonstrated. In response, the Swiss waste
management organization developed a general concept to demonstrate
safe disposal. This concept was deemed technically feasible in 1988;
however, the government required the waste management organization to
demonstrate the existence of a suitable site. According to an
official, the government ruled that because waste disposal had been
shown to be feasible in principle, reactors could continue operating.
Because of public opposition, though, nuclear power faces an
uncertain future in Switzerland.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:1
Nuclear power provides nearly half of Switzerland's
electricity--about 40 percent during 1992. Despite Switzerland's
reliance on nuclear power, a 1990 national referendum imposed a
10-year moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants,
so no new nuclear power plants can be built until the year 2000.
Another initiative requiring the soonest possible phaseout of nuclear
power was rejected by 53 percent of the voters. Switzerland imports
nearly 85 percent of its energy and has no domestic oil resources.
The first Swiss commercial nuclear reactor was commissioned in 1969.
The existing five reactors, located at four sites, are expected to
generate 200 cubic meters of high-level waste by 2000. Switzerland
is nearly 16,000 square miles large, roughly half the size of South
Carolina, but it has nearly twice the population--about 6.8 million
people, or 428 people per square mile. Switzerland is a federation
of 26 cantons (states) that function as a federal republic.
The Swiss have traditionally reprocessed their spent nuclear fuel but
are now reconsidering this policy. The Swiss have contracted with
British and French firms to reprocess their spent fuel. According to
a Swiss official, under early reprocessing contracts, the British and
French firms were to retain the high-level waste from Swiss spent
fuel. During the late 1970s, this arrangement changed, and
reprocessed wastes are now scheduled to be returned to Switzerland
beginning in the mid-1990s. The Swiss may discontinue the use of
reprocessing. This decision has not yet been made, but officials
cited economic reasons for reconsidering their position on
reprocessing. In addition to the current availability of inexpensive
uranium, utilities have concluded that it is cheaper to store spent
fuel than to reprocess it. Used fuel is transported between
Switzerland and the reprocessing facilities by train, truck, and
ship.
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:2
STRATEGY
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:2.1
The Swiss plan to dispose of high-level waste in a deep geologic
repository and are attempting to locate a potential repository site.
In 1978, the government required the utilities to demonstrate safe
waste disposal as a condition for continuing the operation of
existing nuclear plants beyond 1985 and developing nuclear energy in
the future. The utilities responded with a concept for waste
disposal that was deemed technically feasible in 1988; however, the
government was unconvinced that an adequate site existed and could be
found in Switzerland. According to Swiss officials, the government
concluded that safe waste disposal had been demonstrated, so the
reactors could continue operating.
The utilities have investigated crystalline rock and clay formations
for their suitability as a repository. The Swiss have also conducted
research at an underground granite laboratory, which opened in the
early 1980s. This facility is used exclusively for research and will
not be used as a final repository. According to an official, the
Swiss intend to focus on one or two specific sites during the 1990s,
and they plan to propose a single site for a potential repository by
the year 2000. The Swiss expect to construct an underground
laboratory at the proposed site before building a full-scale
repository.
Although the Swiss are pursuing the development of a domestic
repository, they would prefer to dispose of their waste abroad in an
international repository. With only five reactors and a relatively
small volume of high-level waste to dispose of, the Swiss believe
that paying another country to dispose of their waste might be more
economical than building a domestic facility. Recognizing, however,
that the current political environment makes the possibility of an
international repository highly unlikely, the Swiss are moving
forward with their domestic program.
Considerable public opposition exists to Switzerland's geologic
investigations. The best geologic structures are in a relatively
small area in the north near the German border, and Switzerland has
met strong opposition from groups in Germany and Austria. According
to Swiss officials, opponents tend to exhaust all legal means at
their disposal to prevent site investigations; in some cases, these
challenges have significantly slowed investigations. The Swiss have
also encountered substantial public opposition to their efforts to
investigate sites for a lower-level waste repository.
Swiss waste management organizations have the authority to negotiate
a direct payment to affected local areas that host a waste facility.
According to Swiss officials, such an agreement already exists for a
planned interim storage facility; the affected governments will
receive a direct annual payment in compensation for allowing a
nuclear facility to be operated nearby. A similar arrangement will
likely be used for other waste facilities, according to a Swiss
official.
ORGANIZATION
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:2.2
In 1972, the Swiss waste producers--the four nuclear
utilities--joined with the federal government to form the National
Cooperative for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste (NAGRA) to provide
for permanent waste disposal. According to officials, Swiss law
designates nuclear waste producers--primarily the electricity
utilities--as responsible for safe and permanent waste storage and
disposal. The nuclear utilities formed another company in 1990 to
plan and construct an interim storage facility to hold nuclear waste
until a geologic repository is available.
The Swiss federal government grants licenses for nuclear facilities,
but before licenses for constructing and operating nuclear facilities
can be granted, the Parliament must approve a general license for the
facility. The primary regulatory agency is the Federal Nuclear
Safety Inspectorate, which advises the federal government on
licensing matters. The Swiss federal government sets general nuclear
policy.
FUNDING
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:2.3
The costs of waste management are generally borne by the
waste-producing utilities; no organization exists for collecting and
redistributing funds. The federal government provides a minor
contribution for the management of its waste arising from medicine,
industry, and research.
WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL
APPROACH
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:3
KEY ASPECTS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:3.1
According to NAGRA, Switzerland's general repository concept includes
deep emplacement (400 to 1000 meters deep) underground, most likely
into crystalline rock or clay; the geology and other site-specific
factors will determine the details of the design. The artificial
barriers will include a thick stainless steel canister and a
bentonite clay backfill that will surround the canisters in the
shafts. In performance models, Swiss researchers predict that the
canister will provide complete containment for the first 1,000 years
after emplacement. Swiss researchers, however, believe that the
canister will exceed this expectation and remain intact for 100,000
years or more. No special monitoring is planned for long-term safety
once the repository has been sealed, nor do the Swiss expect to make
any special provisions for waste retrieval. After selecting a
potential repository site, the Swiss plan to construct an underground
laboratory before building a repository.
SCHEDULE
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:3.2
The Swiss plan to propose a repository site by the year 2000 and open
a repository no earlier than 2020. The federal government has not
imposed any time constraints for disposing of high-level waste.
REGULATORY APPROACH
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:3.3
Swiss regulators said they will place the burden of proof for
demonstrating safety on the applicant during the licensing procedure.
The regulatory agency has set a radiation dose limit (0.1
millisievert per year), but the applicant is responsible for
designing a system that will meet this goal. During the formal
review, the regulators will act as skeptics, reviewing the
applicant's safety case for potential flaws in methodology. After
the regulators are satisfied with the safety case, they will send the
application forward to the federal Department of Transport,
Communication and Energy. After evaluating the application and
obtaining comments from the public, the Department will forward the
application to the central government, which will grant the license,
with Parliament's approval.
INTERIM STORAGE
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:3.4
Spent fuel is generally stored in pools at the reactors before being
sent by truck, train, or ship to the United Kingdom or France for
reprocessing. To store the high-level waste returned from abroad,
the Swiss utilities are planning to build a centralized interim dry
storage facility. The facility can also store spent fuel, should the
utilities decide against reprocessing. If necessary, this facility
will also be able to store lower-level radioactive waste.
The utilities formed a company in 1990 to build and operate the
storage facility. The government will license the facility, which is
expected to be operational in the late 1990s. It will be located
adjacent to a research institute that treats and stores radioactive
waste from medical applications, industry, and research. The
utilities chose centralized storage because they believe it
simplifies administrative and control procedures, confines facilities
to one site, reduces transportation efforts, and lowers costs.
Highly radioactive waste will be dry-stored for approximately 40
years to allow it to cool.
The interim storage facility is meeting considerable public
opposition--over 20,000 formal objections have been raised thus far
during the licensing process. Opposition groups are concerned about
a variety of issues, such as the extent to which the facility is
protected against disasters (e.g., an airline crash) and the large
concentration of nuclear facilities in one area. This opposition may
delay the development of the storage facility.
THE BRITISH WASTE PROGRAM
======================================================== Appendix VIII
The United Kingdom is deferring decisions on the final disposal of
highly radioactive waste for at least 50 years. Government officials
believe that the United Kingdom will eventually dispose of the waste
in a geologic repository, but the government will make its decision
to do so at a later time. In the interim, the British will reprocess
most spent fuel and store the resultant high-level waste. The United
Kingdom has a relatively low volume of highly radioactive waste,
which can easily be stored. The British believe storage offers the
technical advantages of allowing the radioactivity to decay and the
waste to cool.
Considered more pressing than the need for a high-level waste
disposal facility is the need for a repository for lower-level
radioactive waste. The United Kingdom reprocesses its spent fuel
domestically, and while this process reduces the volume of high-level
waste, it creates a significant amount of lower-level radioactive
waste. A potential site for a lower-level waste repository is under
investigation. Current plans are to commission this repository by
about 2007.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VIII:1
During 1992, 37 nuclear reactors provided the United Kingdom with 23
percent of its electricity. Government officials expect that the
United Kingdom will maintain the current level of reliance on nuclear
power for the foreseeable future. The country commissioned its first
commercial nuclear reactor in 1956, and its reactors are expected to
generate 1,280 cubic meters of high-level waste by the year 2000.
Officials said that recent attempts to privatize the government-owned
nuclear utilities were unsuccessful, at least in part because the
costs of decommissioning aging reactors were uncertain. The United
Kingdom's domestic energy sources include coal, oil, and natural gas.
Most spent fuel is reprocessed in Britain because it is considered a
resource that can be recycled to use recovered uranium and plutonium.
The government owns British Nuclear Fuels, a corporation that
provides commercial fuel cycle services, including spent fuel
reprocessing for domestic and foreign customers. However, the
economics of reprocessing have recently been questioned. One of the
country's nuclear utilities, Scottish Nuclear, plans to store its
used fuel up to 100 years instead of immediately reprocessing it.
According to officials, Scottish Nuclear finds storing its used fuel
less expensive than reprocessing it.
The United Kingdom comprises roughly 94,000 square miles and has a
population of nearly 58 million, or about 613 people per square mile.
Nearly the size of Oregon, it has almost 20 times as many people.
The United Kingdom, which consists of England, Wales, Scotland, and
Northern Ireland, functions under a constitutional monarchy. The
Parliament is the legislative governing body for the United Kingdom,
and it consists of two houses--the House of Lords and the House of
Commons.
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VIII:2
STRATEGY
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix VIII:2.1
The British government is deferring decisions on the final disposal
of highly radioactive waste for at least 50 years. Officials said
that because they have a relatively small volume of waste and
adequate storage facilities, they do not consider high-level waste
disposal an urgent need. In addition, storing the waste for 50 years
or more allows the radioactivity to decrease substantially.
Government officials also said that Britain will probably eventually
dispose high-level waste in a repository, but the decision to do so
will be made at a later time.
Some have questioned the government's deferral of decisions about the
disposal of highly radioactive waste. Certain observers claim that
the government is reluctant to move ahead with waste disposal because
of public opposition. During the late 1970s, the United Kingdom
encountered public protests against a research drilling program for
high-level waste disposal, which ultimately led to the program's
cancellation. Government officials, however, cite the technical
advantages of storing waste as the primary motivation for the delay.
The British are currently concerned with disposing of the lower-level
waste--especially that known as intermediate-level waste--generated
during reprocessing, which they consider a more pressing need.
Recent attention has focused on efforts to investigate and ultimately
build a repository for this waste at a site near the reprocessing
facilities. The British plan to commission this repository by about
2007. Most intermediate-level waste is currently stored at the
reprocessing facility, and most low-level waste is disposed of in a
shallow-burial facility. Officials said that although storing
high-level waste allows the radioactivity to decay substantially, no
such advantage accrues from delaying the disposal of low- and
intermediate-level waste.
ORGANIZATION
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix VIII:2.2
No organization has yet been given responsibility for disposing of
highly radioactive wastes, although waste producers--primarily the
nuclear utilities--are considered responsible for the waste they
create. To manage low- and intermediate-level waste disposal, the
nuclear industry formed the United Kingdom Nirex Limited. The shares
in the company are owned by the nuclear utilities and other nuclear
organizations; the Department of Trade and Industry also holds a
special share.
The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee advises the
government on policy issues and consists of experts from a variety of
disciplines, including the nuclear industry, academia, medical and
research institutions, and the environmental field. In England and
Wales, the regulatory authority is Her Majesty's Inspector of
Pollution together with, in the case of licensed nuclear sites, the
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England and the
Secretary of State for Wales in Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland
have similar regulatory organizations. British policies on
radioactive waste management are set by the Department of
Environment.
FUNDING
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix VIII:2.3
The waste producers are to pay the costs of waste storage and
disposal in the United Kingdom. The nuclear utilities charge their
customers at a rate that includes the expected costs of treating,
storing, and disposing of radioactive waste.
WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL
APPROACH
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VIII:3
KEY ASPECTS
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix VIII:3.1
Since the United Kingdom has not yet decided to build a repository
for high-level waste, it has not developed a repository design.
However, a repository design is being developed for the low- and
intermediate-level waste; this repository will likely include a
multiple-barrier design that includes a waste container and cement
backfill.
SCHEDULE
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix VIII:3.2
The government plans to decide whether and how to proceed with
high-level waste disposal around the year 2040. Government officials
said that because the United Kingdom has a relatively low volume of
high-level waste that can easily be stored, they do not feel
pressured to dispose of the waste.
REGULATORY APPROACH
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix VIII:3.3
Government officials indicated that if the government decided to
build a repository for high-level waste, they would take a regulatory
approach similar to that followed for other nuclear facilities. That
is, the regulators would place the burden for designing an acceptably
safe nuclear facility on the applicant in the licensing process. To
obtain a license, the applicant would be required to demonstrate to
the regulatory authorities that doses and associated risks to the
public would be within regulatory limits and as low as reasonably
achievable. The limits are set by the government on the advice of
the United Kingdom National Radiological Board. For low- and
intermediate-level facilities, the dose must result in a
corresponding risk to affected individuals of not greater than 1
cancer death per 1 million people in any year.
Government officials said that specific limits pertaining to highly
radioactive waste disposal have not been set but are expected to be
consistent with existing limits for other types of nuclear
facilities. The officials said that they prefer general safety
guidelines, which give the responsible operator flexibility to meet
the broadly stated safety goals, rather than prescriptive
regulations. The officials also told us that the government prefers
to place on the operator the onus of demonstrating that a nuclear
facility will be safe. The regulator acts as a skeptic who must be
convinced that the facility will be safe.
INTERIM STORAGE
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix VIII:3.4
Spent fuel is generally stored in pools at the reactors until it is
sent by truck and train to the reprocessing facilities. After
reprocessing, the remaining highly radioactive waste is stored at the
reprocessing facility; plutonium separated during reprocessing is
also stored at the reprocessing facility. To allow heat and
radiation levels to decline and to allow time for evaluating disposal
options, the waste will be stored for at least 50 years before being
disposed of. Officials said storage capacity at the reprocessing
facility could easily hold, or be expanded to hold, the high-level
waste produced from reprocessing operations during the next 50 years.
Some spent fuel may be stored longer at the reactors in dry storage.
According to British officials, one of the country's utilities,
Scottish Nuclear, finds that storing spent fuel is less expensive
than reprocessing it. The utility plans to construct a dry storage
facility to hold spent fuel for up to 100 years. Some environmental
groups in the United Kingdom consider aboveground storage to be the
"least-worst" option for managing high-level waste. They believe
that additional study of various disposal options is needed before a
method is selected.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
========================================================== Appendix IX
Senator Bryan requested that we compare and contrast the approaches
taken by major nuclear countries for civilian high-level waste
management with the approach taken by the United States. To satisfy
our objectives, we visited seven major nuclear countries: Canada,
France, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
Experts recommended that we visit these countries because they are
major nuclear powers and have relied on nuclear energy to generate a
significant percentage of their electricity for several decades.
More importantly, each country has a unique approach toward waste
storage and disposal. We did not include countries from the former
Soviet Union or Eastern Europe in our review. Officials at
international nuclear agencies suggested that, at this time, the
United States would be in a better position to offer assistance to
these nations than to learn from them.
In each country, we interviewed cognizant waste management officials,
such as representatives from the central government, and from waste
management and regulatory agencies. Where possible, we also met with
officials from the affected local governments, nuclear industry, and
environmental groups. We supplemented our interviews with
documentation when available, but we did not audit each country's
waste management program to verify the accuracy and completeness of
the information we received. We also provided a summary of
information to officials from each country and asked that it be
reviewed for accuracy and completeness. We relied primarily on GAO's
previous reviews of DOE's nuclear waste storage and disposal programs
for information on U.S. waste management. Finally, we met with
officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Nuclear
Energy Agency, and the Commission for the European Communities. We
performed our work from June 1992 through March 1994 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix X
RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C.
Jim Wells, Associate Director
Dwayne Weigel, Assistant Director
Michael Gilbert, Consultant
EUROPEAN OFFICE
Patricia Foley Hinnen, Assignment Manager
Paula Mathews, Evaluator-in-Charge
John Pendleton, Staff Evaluator
FAR EAST OFFICE
Raymond Ridgeway, Senior Evaluator
Joyce Akins, Staff Evaluator