atw - International Journal for Nuclear Power | 03.2023

atw Vol. 68 (2023) | Ausgabe 3 ı Mai
DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 48
/ Shutdown forecast
Swiss Confederation
/ Shutdown forecast
Operators
/ Binding switch-off
date of NPP
Begin of operation
of the repository
with year of forecast
| Fig. 1
Forecasts of the realization of the Swiss HLW and LILW repositories in the last decades.
of well-secured central interim storage facilities 11
in order to be able to react sufficiently flexibly and
with sufficient technical alternative strategies and
options in the face of these uncertainties in the final
repository planning of the future. 12
The crux of modern waste management
programs
The difficulties or failures in the current implementation
of the waste management programs that
have been initiated in the various countries using
nuclear energy over time, are largely responsible
for these delays. Certainly, problematic disposal
practices of the past and failed or damaged projects
such as the Asse test repository or the Morsleben repository
in the Federal Republic of Germany played
a role in the delays of the originally envisaged implementation
schedules. 13 However, other factors
are of more fundamental importance: scientifically
based site selection programs with clearly defined
processes, as they were originally envisaged in the
1970s, 14 have so far only been implemented for
three projects: the WIPP project, 15 the Swiss sectoral
plan procedure 16 and the German site search
procedure. 17
All other national programs determined their repository
sites based on other criteria, such as the
locations of production facilities (Finland, Sweden,
Belgium), or implemented abbreviated site selection
programs or those based on other criteria
(France, Canada). Canada's process, for example,
was based on a consent-based site selection process
in which communities interested in a repository
could volunteer. 18
Other national programs are
slow to move forward. Still others, such as those
in the U.S., the U.K. and Spain, have been put on
hold for the time being.
In addition, there is the growing social and political
influence on the selection of sites and the high demands
on the scientificity of the procedures and the
quality of the solutions developed, especially over
the targeted safety and isolation periods of up to
1 million years. The rapid development of science
and technology not only opens up great opportunities
in the implementation of the programs, but also
represents significant risk factors for the concepts of
deep geological disposal at depths of up to 1,000 m.
Thus, underground use at the depth designated for
final disposal suddenly becomes interesting for
other objectives and applications that increasingly
compete with nuclear disposal. A classic example
is the geothermal use of the subsurface for heat generation,
which is de facto applicable everywhere
and could be a potential killer criterion for the concept
of deep geological disposal pursued today due
to rapidly decreasing costs and the great technical
11 Shrader-Frechette K. (1993): Burying Uncertainty, Risk and the Case Against Geological Disposal of Nuclear Waste, University of California Press;
Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, 2012. Transportation and Storage Subcommittee, Report to the Full Commission, Updated Report,
January 2012; Buser, M. 2017. Von der «Geologischen Tiefenlagerung» zur «Dualen Strategie», in drei Teilen, www.nuclearwaste.info.
12 IAEA, 2019. Management of Spent Fuel from Nuclear Power Reactors, Learning from the Past, Enabling the Future, p. 258.
13 See history of country-specific disposal programs, e.g. USA (Walter, S. J., 2009. The Road to Yucca Mountain, University of California Press; Alley, W., Alley, R., 2013.
Too Hot to Touch, Cambridge University Press), Germany (z.B. Möller, Detlev, 2007. Endlagerung radioaktiver Abfälle in der Bundesrepublik, Studien zur Technik-,
Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte, Vol. 15, Peter Lang, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften; Tiggemann, Anselm, 2004. Die „Achillesferse“ der Kernenergie in
der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Europaforum-Verlag), Switzerland (z.B. Flüeler, Th. 2002: Radioaktive Abfälle in der Schweiz, Muster der Entscheidungsfindung in
komplexen soziotechnischen Systemen. Dissertation 14645, ETH Zürich; Hadermann, J., Issler, H., Zurkinden, A., 2014. Die nukleare Entsorgung in der Schweiz 1945 –
2006. Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung; Buser, Marcos, 2019. Wohin mit dem Atommüll? Rotpunkt-Verlag Zürich) and others.
14 DOE, 1979. Management of commercially generated radioactive waste, Vol. 1&2, Department of Energy, DOE/EIS-0046-D.
15 Mora, Carl J., 1999. Sandia and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 1974 – 1999, Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque SAND99-1482.
16 ENSI, Sectoral Plan for Deep Geological Repositories (SGT), Eidg. Nuklearsicherheitsinspektorat.
17 BGE, Site Selection Procedure, Bundesgesellschaft für Endlagerung.
18 Braden, Z., Macfarlane, A., 2023. Final countdown to site selection for Canada's nuclear waste geologic repository, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 16, 2023.
Decommissioning and Waste Management
Radioactive Waste between long-term Interim Storage and Site Selection ı Marcos Buser, Walter Wildi