Euradwaste '08 - EU Bookshop - Europa

working group [5]. Its main objective is to identify reversibility limits and mostly the modalities to
assess them. In parallel and consistently with the group’s activities, Andra has proposed the principle
of a reversibility scale allowing, first of all, the different teams to exchange opinions on the basis
of a common terminology [6].
Reversibility also opens up the issue about repository monitoring and environmental follow-up. As
a matter of fact, the ultimate decision to retrieve waste packages shall rely on objective arguments
and data that are only obtainable if a suitable monitoring and follow-up programme is implemented
around disposal facilities. The purpose of the MoDeRn Project, which has been launched in the
framework of the 7 th FPRD, is to provide the first response elements and to identify which requirements
need to be met regarding technological developments in order to find corresponding responses.
Lastly, it is impossible to speak about waste disposal over the long term without mentioning conservation
of information and of the repository memory during the ultimate reversibility phase and
over the very long term. The issue is already well assimilated over a few centuries on disposal sites
for short-lived waste, but will need to find appropriate responses over the longer term.
6. Societal challenges
Decisions on controversial issues such as those relating to nuclear energy are prepared and taken
within a complex social and political context that may involve contradictory interests at times or
lead to political compromises, but always with a concern to protect human health and the environment.
The opposition and failures encountered in various countries since the 1980s have led to consider
more open and transparent governance modes in order to associate the different stakeholders in the
reflections, the procedures and the preparation of relevant reports. In Europe, Scandinavian countries,
such as Finland and Sweden, were the first to be faced with determined opponents who were
either purely and simply opposed to the disposal of high-level radioactive waste, thus hoping to
block the generation of nuclear power, or advocating decision-making processes combining a better
participation of stakeholders and enlightening more objectively the nature of the risks in the vicinity
of such facilities. Investigations finally focused on nuclear-power generating sites with the support
of local authorities and populations. On the other hand, the proximity of a nuclear facility such as
Sellafield, was not sufficient to convince populations and authorities to pursue investigations for a
deep geological repository in the United Kingdom. Once again, the claim for more transparent decision-making
processes involving a better participation of all stakeholders was emphasised, as the
CoWRM’s conclusions and recommendations clearly illustrate [7].
The approach that was finally adopted in Belgium for the disposal of low-level and intermediatelevel
short-lived waste [8] will have shown ultimately that the participation of local communities
and of the different stakeholders, even in the selection of certain design options, had led to a generally
accepted project. The integration of the radioactive waste disposal project into a regional development
plan has undoubtedly been a determining factor.
Germany experienced an extremely fast development of its facilities, but was faced with a demand
as explicit as in other countries. A moratorium is still being imposed on the Gorleben Site for political
reasons reflecting the same request as in other countries for an open and transparent decisionmaking
process after having reviewed all other disposal alternatives in the Gorleben salt dome. In
the case of non-exothermal waste, the Konrad was finally licensed following a procedure that extended
over more than 20 years.
In France, following the failure of site implementations for investigation purposes, the Law of
30 December 1991 prescribed a new deadline for Parliament to discuss the issue after 15 years of
investigations. In 2005, the results were made public and the government asked the National
Commission on Public Debate to organise a public inquiry on radioactive waste management. For
38