Euradwaste '08 - EU Bookshop - Europa

oughly EUR 35 million. ‘It is impossible to foresee what will happen globally during the operation
of a repository over the next 100 years or so,’ he concluded, adding, ‘We need these cost calculations.
We have to demonstrate that the solutions are economically feasible. But it’s not cheap,
and the funds must be collected in advance.’
During the panel discussion that followed, Mr Jean-Paul Minon of ONDRAF/NIRAS in Belgium
said, ‘We have to foot the bill at the end of the day, and we need to think about what mechanisms
will ensure that the bill can be paid.’
Dr Codée of COVRA promoted a multinational approach to building and operating geological repositories,
explaining that the cost of a repository is economically not feasible with a very small
nuclear programme; ‘you could, alternatively, share the repository with others and share the cost.
It’s not easy, but it’s a way, and it should be a European way.’ Dr Codée added, ‘Fuel-making is an
international business. We buy electricity from other countries. Why should the disposal part be
non-international?’
Working together
As one might imagine, the question of how nations and industry manage the finances of the money
put aside for nuclear waste disposal was a matter of some debate. In some countries, such as France
and the Netherlands, the process is open, while in others, such as Belgium, that information is not
made available to the public. Because of the wide differences between countries in how finances
are managed, the question of shared-cost repositories remained open.
There is clearly widespread cooperation in research, both within Europe and worldwide. Mrs Dupuis
of ANDRA remarked, ‘Our area is one where we are not in competition with one another. We
are all moving forward together. Progress in one country will help the others.’
Several representatives of countries with smaller nuclear programmes agreed that implementing
plans for geological disposal would be helped by seeing a working example in a country with a larger
programme, such as Sweden or Finland.
This is no small feat. Countries that have put a lot of resources into basic research and development
are open to sharing what they’ve learned with other countries and allowing countries that haven’t
yet started to learn from their mistakes. However, close cooperation during the phase leading up to
actual implementation is difficult because, as Dr Patrakka of Posiva said, ‘programmes are at various
stages, their scopes and volumes are different, technical solutions vary, implementation is organised
differently and funding schemes are different’.
In the case of Slovakia, their spent-fuel strategy is based on their relationship with the former Soviet
Union, which makes implementation of geological repositories difficult for legislative reasons.
Slovenia faces a different set of challenges. Dr Irena Mele of ARAO in Slovenia explained, ‘we
have one plant, and we own half of it; Croatia owns the other half. How can we train the critical
mass, especially in terms of human resources? … International cooperation is essential for the viability
of our programme.’
Dr Piet Zuidema of NAGRA in Switzerland said, ‘Failure is the real cost issue. If you can save
money with cooperation you should do it, but not if it’s going to negatively impact the quality.’
3