Euradwaste '08 - EU Bookshop - Europa
Euradwaste '08 - EU Bookshop - Europa Euradwaste '08 - EU Bookshop - Europa
This year saw the publication of two important Commission reports in the area of Radioactive Waste Management: – the 6 th Situation Report – the 4 th Special Eurobarometer on radioactive waste The 6 th Situation report has good and bad messages: – First good message: there is clear progress in the disposal of short-lived low and intermediate level waste. Today 7 of the 16 EU Member States already operate repositories for this waste type. By 2020 disposal solutions are expected to be in place in almost all EU Member States. – Another good message: Finland, Sweden and France appear to progress well towards the implementation of deep geological repositories for high level waste and spent fuel. Operational repositories are expected up to 2025. Germany and Belgium will possibly follow by 2040. In addition, Germany will most likely also have a deep repository for non-heat emitting short and long-lived waste already by the end of 2013. – Third good message: The responsibility for waste management is clearly assigned in all the Member States – The bad message: most of the remaining countries appear to be much less advanced when talking about high level waste and spent fuel. This situation has to be put in contrast to what our "clients", the citizens, feel and expect from us as confirmed by the 2008 Eurobarometer on radioactive waste – Citizens are now split 50-50 in their opinions about the use of nuclear energy, which is a significant increase in favour of nuclear compared to earlier polls of this kind. But radioactive waste management is still regarded as a major stumbling block. 4 out of 10 of those opposed to nuclear would change their mind if there where safe and permanent solutions in place for the management of high level waste – Moreover, an overwhelming majority of more than 90 percent of the citizens feel that this issue should not be left for future generations, and that each MS should have in place a Radioactive Waste Management plan with fixed deadlines. – But, here we have a bad message as well: citizens feel not well informed about radioactive waste, and they are not convinced yet that geological disposal is really a safe solution. – In this situation, citizens clearly expect the EU to develop consistent and harmonised methodologies and to monitor national practices and programmes. – Do you see the parallel to the recent bank crisis? I do. You know it better than me: for 30 years, research has been undertaken in geological disposal. Under the Research Framework Programmes, the European Commission has invested around 200M€ alone since 1994 to support Member States' research in the area of radioac- 16
tive waste management, a considerable part of this amount being allocated to geological disposal of high level waste. Today, experts agree that it has been sufficiently demonstrated that geological disposal represents the safest and most sustainable option for the long-term management of highlevel waste. So why the implementation of solutions is so difficult in so many MS and even worldwide? Of course, the Commission is well aware that geological disposal implies quite a number of technical, financial and societal challenges and needs time for its implementation. But, we in Europe are the leaders in the area of nuclear technology. We have mastered all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle and market our equipment and services throughout the world. We should demonstrate that we also can successfully manage the radioactive waste produced. I hope you agree that a "mañana"-type wait-and-see approach is not an appropriate response, given the mentioned decades required for the implementation. 3. The challenges So, given that the technology is available, what are the real obstacles? Financing and cost? Public acceptance? Lack of political commitment? Lets cover Financing and Cost first. Here we have to distinguish two issues, – the provision of sufficient and timely funding – by the industry - for the realisation of geological disposal and – the total cost which create a challenge in particular for Member States with small nuclear programmes. Small programmes: yes, there are high fixed costs caused by research, site investigation, underground laboratory and construction. Yes, MS with small nuclear programmes would have to bear similar cost as those with big programmes. But: the case of Finland demonstrates that even countries with relatively small programmes can afford their own national repository if the process starts in time. Cooperation with others is an important tool to minimise cost. Its potentials are proven by the cooperation between Finland and Sweden and were in addition analysed in the CATT project 1 under the 6 th Framework Program. 1 Coordinated Action for Transfer of Technology 17
- Page 2 and 3: Interested in European research? Re
- Page 4 and 5: LEGAL NOTICE Neither the European C
- Page 7 and 8: TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD iii CONF
- Page 9 and 10: “Impact of advanced fuel cycle sc
- Page 11 and 12: “Sensitivity analysis techniques
- Page 13 and 14: Topic: Support actions SAPIERR-II -
- Page 15: CONFERENCE SUMMARIES
- Page 18 and 19: supported. The Commission believes
- Page 20 and 21: Ms Monika Hammarström of SKB in Sw
- Page 22 and 23: Dr Bruno of Amphos 21 urged the swi
- Page 24 and 25: measurements of actinides to determ
- Page 26 and 27: Dr Peter Blümling of Nagra in Swit
- Page 28 and 29: Future directions There seemed to b
- Page 31: 1. Introduction Keynote Address Pet
- Page 35 and 36: the decision making process. The se
- Page 37: All initiatives leading to encourag
- Page 40 and 41: tegrating them as part of advanced
- Page 43: General introduction and objectives
- Page 47 and 48: Radioactive waste management: Where
- Page 49 and 50: The intense development in nuclear
- Page 51 and 52: Figure 3: Schematic diagram of the
- Page 53 and 54: contributed to enhance knowledge ab
- Page 55 and 56: the first time in French history, a
- Page 57 and 58: PANEL DISCUSSION Summary of the Pan
- Page 59: With the support of IAEA preliminar
- Page 63 and 64: Assessment of Financial Provisions
- Page 65 and 66: collected in the cost of the nuclea
- Page 67 and 68: erated by Fortum) and one PWR unit
- Page 69 and 70: pected. As to tunnel backfilling, t
- Page 71 and 72: ferent, the technological solutions
- Page 73 and 74: PANEL DISCUSSION Summary of the Pan
- Page 75: Discussion: As a response to a ques
- Page 79 and 80: Cooperation in the development of g
- Page 81 and 82: During the 1980’s it was realized
tive waste management, a considerable part of this amount being allocated to geological<br />
disposal of high level waste.<br />
Today, experts agree that it has been sufficiently demonstrated that geological disposal<br />
represents the safest and most sustainable option for the long-term management of highlevel<br />
waste.<br />
So why the implementation of solutions is so difficult in so many MS and even worldwide?<br />
Of course, the Commission is well aware that geological disposal implies quite a number of<br />
technical, financial and societal challenges and needs time for its implementation.<br />
But, we in Europe are the leaders in the area of nuclear technology. We have mastered all<br />
aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle and market our equipment and services throughout the<br />
world. We should demonstrate that we also can successfully manage the radioactive waste<br />
produced.<br />
I hope you agree that a "mañana"-type wait-and-see approach is not an appropriate response,<br />
given the mentioned decades required for the implementation.<br />
3. The challenges<br />
So, given that the technology is available, what are the real obstacles? Financing and cost?<br />
Public acceptance? Lack of political commitment?<br />
Lets cover Financing and Cost first.<br />
Here we have to distinguish two issues,<br />
– the provision of sufficient and timely funding – by the industry - for the realisation of<br />
geological disposal and<br />
– the total cost which create a challenge in particular for Member States with small nuclear<br />
programmes.<br />
Small programmes: yes, there are high fixed costs caused by research, site investigation,<br />
underground laboratory and construction. Yes, MS with small nuclear programmes would<br />
have to bear similar cost as those with big programmes.<br />
But: the case of Finland demonstrates that even countries with relatively small programmes<br />
can afford their own national repository if the process starts in time.<br />
Cooperation with others is an important tool to minimise cost. Its potentials are proven by<br />
the cooperation between Finland and Sweden and were in addition analysed in the CATT<br />
project 1 under the 6 th Framework Program.<br />
1 Coordinated Action for Transfer of Technology<br />
17
Change language