Multinational Initiatives for Long-Term Multinational Initiatives for Long-Term Spent Fuel ManagementSpent Fuel Management

- an update on current international projects -- an update on current international projects -

Neil Chapman & Charles McCombieArius Association, Switzerland

Ewoud VerhoefCOVRA, Netherlands

IAEA: Spent Fuel Management from Power Reactors, Vienna, June 2010

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

451

95

4

19

57

19

60

19

63

19

66

19

69

19

72

19

75

19

78

19

81

19

84

19

87

19

90

19

93

19

96

19

99

20

02

20

05

20

08

20

11

20

14

20

17

20

20

USSR, then Russia

USA

UK

France

Germany

Canada

Rest of Europe

Japan

India

Pakistan

Rep. of Korea

Taiwan

China

Other

Power Reactor Power Reactor CommissioningCommissioning

(data from WNA reactor database)(data from WNA reactor database)

Amount of SF worldwide: tHM x 1000

Heading for half a

million....

Generated

Reprocessed

In store

Operational Dates: Spent Fuel & HLW Repositories ....?

. Belgium: after 2025

Bulgaria: open China: after 2040

Czech Republic: c.2065 Finland: c.2020

France: c.2025 Germany: open

Hungary: 2047 Italy: open

Japan: c.2035 Lithuania: open

Netherlands: after 2100 Romania 2049

Slovakia: 2037 Slovenia: 2066

Spain: open Rep. of Korea: open

Sweden: c.2020 Switzerland: c.2040

United Kingdom: c.2070 USA: open

The situation, the problem .....and one The situation, the problem .....and one element of a solutionelement of a solution

Storage capacity is filling up in many countries

Numerous new NPPs are proposed worldwide

Number and distribution of SF storage locations could increase markedly over next 30 years

Take-back of SF appears not to be a working option: major global fuel cycle initiatives remain largely just initiatives

Large-scale recycling is a long way off ...if ever?

Disposal is expensive and hard to implement

Sharing disposal regionally would help to move timescales forwards

TopicsTopics

Siting a multinational repository - how?

Europe - the ERDO and its working group

Adapting the ERDO model for other regions?

Shared SF Disposal - the Siting ProblemShared SF Disposal - the Siting Problem

...but there is a way forward, modelled on the best international practice being pursued today

““But which country will be the host? But which country will be the host?

..you will never find that a country is willing ..you will never find that a country is willing to host a repository for other people’s to host a repository for other people’s

waste”waste”

Prerequisites to identification of Prerequisites to identification of potential host sites or countriespotential host sites or countries

1. Recognition of a common need for a repository

2. Transparent specification of ALL requirements to be fulfilled

3. Establish, document and discuss pros and cons of hosting a facility

4. Establish TRUST in the potential implementing organisation

Siting an international repository will face the same problems as a national repository – in both cases it is NOT something you do at the start of a programme…..

A host and its neighbours....A host and its neighbours....

NEIGHBOURCommunity

CountyRegionCountry

HOSTCommunity

CountyRegionCountry

...a matter of scale - not principle, nor process

Nuclear Engineering International, May 2008

...a bottom-up, volunteer approach from communities

An approach to siting... bottom-up, An approach to siting... bottom-up, staged, volunteer-basedstaged, volunteer-based

staged volunteer model incorporating stakeholder involvement at all stages

technically guided at start - but only to exclude clearly unsuitable regions

incorporates flexibility to evaluate objectively any proposals that might emerge from volunteer communities, or regions, or countries

underpinning: any location not obviously unsuitable on basis of existing knowledge is worth considering on its merits (UK, Japan)

many different geological environments can provide acceptable isolation and containment conditions; different repository concepts have been designed to take advantage of this range

volunteer location might be rejected after only limited investigations, if too difficult to make a reliable safety case or too costly to adapt designs to site conditions

essential element: maintain flexibility, not exclude interested communities if there is a realistic likelihood that they could prove suitable

Sensitive questions......Sensitive questions......

What is the appropriate community/region level of volunteering?

Must volunteer countries already have identified potential host communities?

Does government of a country have to volunteer actively or, more passively, simply agree not to block any local volunteers?

Can local communities volunteer before national agreements are reached?

At which of the above levels is consent to volunteer required?

How does one define sufficient acceptance at each of the levels?

Who has veto or withdrawal rights and at which project stages can these be exercised?

Who negotiates levels and distribution of benefits for volunteers?

How would it work in practice?How would it work in practice?A group of countries (e.g. ERDO) comes together to explore possibility of sharing a geological repository

wide publicity to project explain national and community benefitsannounce launch of a volunteer process

Involve wide range of national and international stakeholders to establish common set of technically based exclusion criteria

national databases play central role and national agencies (e.g. geological surveys) pivotal in applying the factors

Communities in non-excluded areas in all countries invited to express interest (on non-committing basis) in possibility of being a host

national governments agree not to stand in the way of this process – some may actively encourage itnational governments free to solicit specific volunteer communities that might have particular interest or particularly favourable characteristics

Degrees of CommitmentDegrees of Commitment

Up to pre-defined ‘point of commitment’ (e.g. after several years of site investigations) interested communities & national governments free to withdraw

Partner countries might enter the project at different stages. can’t make realistic estimate of costs or scale of benefits and impacts to host country and community until largest partners are known illustrates that too early a commitment on hosting could be inappropriate

Essence of model: takes some of the burden of leadership of a very sensitive project off national governments that may be reluctant to be in the vanguard of such a programme

Requires only that national government acknowledges and supports democratic decision powers of local communities

Putting local communities firstPutting local communities first

....act in an international arena

....consider themselves as potential contributors, not just to meeting a national challenge, but to solving a regional or multinational problem

relatively new in planning and decision-making, although elements of such a process are already visible in the EU

farsightedness and economic and societal benefits that would accrue may make siting a shared repository considerably less difficult than critics of multinational solutions assert

ERDO-WG Mission StatementERDO-WG Mission Statement

.......work together to address common challenges of safely managing the long-lived radioactive wastes in our countries.

.......investigate feasibility of establishing a formal, joint European waste management organization.

.......carry out all necessary groundwork to enable establishment of a European Repository Development Organization as a working entity and present a consensus proposal to our governments.

....if sufficiently broad consensus is achieved by our governments or their representatives, ERDO will be established at the end of this process.

ERDO-WG, ERDO and EROERDO-WG, ERDO and ERO

ERDO

European Repository Development Organisation

ERDO-WG

Working Group to lay the

foundations for the ERDO

ERO

European Repository

Organisation

2009 2011 2020-25

Investigation of Sites

Preferred Site: trigger for ERO

Binding host agreements

times uncertain/flexible

State of DevelopmentState of Development

Four meetings since January 2009

Terms of Reference for ERDO-WG

Draft Operating Guidelines for ERDO

Draft Model Constitution for ERDO

Draft Cost Sharing Model for ERDO

Outline Approach to Siting for ERDO

Some Key Elements of ERDO ModelSome Key Elements of ERDO ModelCo-operative, operating solely for benefit of member countries on a not-for-profit, shared risk basis

Member countries must have national strategic plan for RWM that meets their obligations (Joint Convention & any EC Directives)

Member countries with active or past nuclear power programmes expected to have active, parallel national programme for geological disposal on own territory to fulfil international obligations

Members fund agreed programme of work proportionate to an estimate of their inventory of wastes for geological disposal (cash; in-kind contributions)

Work does not interfere with or adversely affect any national waste management plans (member and other countries) – expected to work symbiotically with national programmes to share R&D and technologies and produce cost-benefits

EU Directives on radioactive waste management IAEA Joint Convention

National Government

Strategic plan for radioactive waste management

National Implementer

Agency

ERDO GDF Siting and R&D programme

National GDF siting and R&D

programme

National long-lived waste & SF store(s)

ERDO

National LLW repository siting and R&D

programme

National LLW repository

ERDO interim storage facilities

Model A

Countries with Nuclear Power

....a model also exists for non-nuclear power

member countries

National GDFERDO GDFs

ENSREG

National Regulatory Authorities

Funding Funding

National GDF might be an ERDO GDF

Shared R&D and technology

Requirements

Transfer if needed

ERDO end-pointERDO end-pointDevelop repository operational plan (including any associated storage and other facilities) making safe and secure disposal available at minimum cost to member countries

Ensure transparent oversight and use of most appropriate technologies and internationally recognised safety standards: ERDO may submit its work to:

technical audit by IAEA

to regulatory overview by European Nuclear Safety Regulator Group (ENSREG) or representatives & regulatory authorities of host country

At an agreed time, ERDO will transition to a European Repository Organization (ERO).

expected before repository enters licensing process, so license applicant will be the eventual operator of the facility

ERDO member countries guaranteed access to ERO facilities at charges agreed before transition takes place

Existing and potential new nuclear power nations: can the ERDO model be adapted for use in other regions?

Sources: IAEA, NEA, WNA, IEA, et. al., 2008Sources: IAEA, NEA, WNA, IEA, et. al., 2008

from www.ncitd.org

Arius is starting a pilot project, supported by US charitable foundations, to explore the potential

interest and adaptability of the concept in some of these regions

Central and

South America

N. Africa

Arabian Gulf

S.E. Asia

ERDO

ERDO-WG OutreachERDO-WG OutreachLondon

‘Times’, March 2010

“Eastern Europe to host

EU nuclear waste storage

facility”

“Collective storage of radioactive wastes will

slash industry costs”

ConclusionsConclusions

Sharing disposal is a possible way of enhancing global safety & security by ensuring earlier access of all nuclear nations to appropriate storage & disposal facilities

There is a sensible approach to siting a shared repository

ERDO represents a major step forward in Europe

It may be attractive & adaptable to other regions

It is not easy!

The IAEA has an absolutely central role in encouraging and facilitating progress