Euradwaste '08 - EU Bookshop - Europa

Discussion:
The chairman opened the debate by stating that sharing facilities is an idea that must be discussed
and presented the EDRAM position on cooperation in geological disposal:
1. Each country responsible for their waste;
2. Each country has the right to prohibit import/export of radioactive waste;
3. Successful implementation of national programmes within 10-20 years is top priority;
4. Countries can share repositories as long as they comply with international safety standards;
5. Same ethical considerations should apply to national and multinational repositories;
6. International cooperation plays an important role in R&D and can promote progress.
From the discussions and comments made by the panellists, the main elements are summarized below:
If successful implementation of national programmes within 10-20 years is top priority,
should we dedicate all EC resources to advanced programmes (F, SE, FI)?
Every country is responsible for its own waste. Therefore, cooperating with other countries
to help them find solutions for their waste without working on its national solution (i.e. waiting
for a multinational solution), is an irresponsible approach. In addition, the proposed
waste directive applies to everybody; EDRAM identified the multinational option as a reason
not to include tight time schedules in the waste directive.
Multinational approaches should not make the same mistakes national programmes made
before: don’t go too fast, start with the support of the public, which is not yet the case in
many countries. Examine social support at local level at various locations before progressing
Multinational solutions are necessary for countries like Slovenia. For instance, the price to
encapsulate waste represents a major part of the overall cost of disposal. Some countries
cannot afford the price of such encapsulation plant as well as the canister fabrication plant
which would double the cost of disposal. As it is done for the front-end, international (industrial)
services must be considered for the back-end.
There appears to be a strong opposition to multinational solutions especially from countries
currently developing their own national programmes. This debate has become over-heated.
Both national and multinational solutions can be envisaged and studied. After all the whole
fuel cycle is international, why make the disposal of radioactive waste an exception.
There is an important difference between other steps in the fuel cycle and waste disposal.
Other fuel cycle products are geographically widespread, while waste is placed at a specific
location.
Wrap-up by the chairman
Sharing facilities is an idea that must be discussed. We have to investigate the basic reasons for
multinational solutions. At the same time we have to realize that some countries have difficulties
working on national programmes and are afraid that the multinational solutions may set them back
20 years. There are contrasting perspectives on the idea, but we need to watch the temperature in
the debate and take it back to a sane level.
72