Euradwaste '08 - EU Bookshop - Europa

Discussion:
As a response to a question on the existence of examples of research to decrease the costs of geological
disposal programmes instead of increase, E. Patrakka indicated that if the design basis of the
disposal facility is not fixed as in the Finnish example, R&D activities keep carrying out and the
last scientific achievements can be implemented. In general, scientific and legislative developments
need money added J-P. Minon.
The opportunities for using or not using discounted costs have been discussed. Experience from
COVRA is that it is not possible to use discounted costs. POSIVA Oy example considers both calculations.
The way to regularly re-evaluate the estimated cost of radioactive waste management has been discussed.
In France the cost is evaluated every three years under the control of the administrative authority.
In the Netherlands, the costs are reviewed every five years; for the waste generated in the
past, a revision of prices is not foreseen. The status of the cost evaluation is different among the
countries (public information, commercial data). On the question on how the money accumulated in
the funds is managed – for example by investment banks, shares, real estate, E. Patrakka answered
that in Finland it is a state fund and POSIVA Oy is not responsible for the money management. J-P
Minon indicated that in Belgium long-term funds are established by a Royal decree and money are
used to the state profits. The surveillance committee takes care to approve the solidity of money
investment. They are used by the economic network and saved by economic cycle. In France, the
provisions of the nuclear operators are controlled by the administrative authority.
In relation with the example of copper canister thickness which decreased twice during the past
years, there is a concern on losing the flexibility by creating a picture that cannot change if the price
decreases. On this issue E. Patrakka indicated that the raw material prices are forecast, the real cost
is unknown.
H. Codee insisted that the only option for the small countries to cope with the costs is to try to find
a way to share the cost. If 25 or 27 repositories in Europe are constructed they will not work. Multilateral
repository will be a really working facility. The principle “Together in Europe” has to be
applied.
The cost estimation has to include total cost of siting, R&D activities, and design.
The small countries will benefit if a market of disposal activities is established in Europe and if an
opportunity for transport of spent fuel and vitrified waste is created commented V. Duda.
The Finnish example and the panel discussion illustrate the importance of economical aspects
within radioactive waste management. The cost evaluation process is not simple since it has to address
long periods of time and uncertainties. Many countries have already implemented dedicated
funds or assets to prepare the realization of long-term waste management solutions.
59