USE OF CLEARANCE LEVELS

The derivation and verification of clearance levels for solid waste and waste oil generated by the operation of nuclear power plants and for decom-missioning waste was the main subject of several of the papers from developed countries.

Clearance levels were derived using several scenarios (landfill disposal, incineration, recycling) for a wide range of short lived radionuclides and compared with the values published in different IAEA documents. The calculated values of the clearance levels are comparable with the values listed in IAEA Safety Guide RS-G-1.7 and are generally lower than other reference values. These values will be used in the revision of clearance related regula-tions. The procedure for verification of clearance levels used in one developed country was also described.

The management of large contaminated sites is an issue that was addressed in contributed papers from two Eastern European countries. This contamination is a result of a major accident and military and civil activities on the coastal areas. One paper focused on the conditioning of radioactive contamination in the soil while the other was concerned with the radiological classification of contaminated areas.

7. CONCLUSIONS

From the contributed and invited papers the following issues were identified:

— Disused sealed sources;

●Borehole disposal concept as a preferred disposal option for disused sealed sources in developing countries;

●Prospects of a multinational regional repository for disused sealed sources, benefits and challenges;

— Disposal of low and intermediate level waste;

●Development of subsurface disposal facilities at intermediate depth;

●Safety case for disposal facilities;

●Acceptance of radioactive waste of foreign origin for disposal;

— Geological disposal of spent fuel and/or high level waste (HLW);

●Alternatives to geological disposal of spent fuel and/or HLW;

●Prospects for a regional geological repository;

LIETAVA

— Regulation of radioactive waste management activities;

●The role and involvement of regulatory authorities in the site selection process and in the definition of siting criteria for different types of disposal facilities;

●Roles and responsibilities of national agencies involved in the regulations of radioactive waste management activities;

— Centralized waste management facilities;

— Country specific classification schemes for radioactive waste;

— Acceptance of waste management facilities by the public;

— Internationally derived versus case by case clearance levels;

— Management of large amounts of contaminated material from decommis-sioning and site restoration activities.

PANEL

Session IIb

NATIONAL STRATEGIES TO ENSURE THE SAFE DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

Chairperson: A.J. Hooper (United Kingdom) Members: R. Cailleton (France)

M.V. Federline (United States of America) V. Štefula (Slovakia)

P. Lietava (Czech Republic) T. Kosako (Japan)

C. McCombie (Switzerland) M.J. Song (Republic of Korea) D. Louvat (IAEA)

A.J. HOOPER (United Kingdom): From the presentations made earlier in this session it is clear that there is a ‘common framework’ within which we can think about what long term management solutions exist for radioactive waste. However, R. Cailleton’s presentation seemed to indicate that even in a country which has made great strides in the field of radioactive waste policy development there are some waste types for which the long term management solution is not very well defined. Perhaps R. Cailleton could clarify that point.

R. CAILLETON (France): With the law of 30 December 1991 we acquired a legal framework for seeking a long term management solution for high level waste. Then, in the 1990s, we developed a management framework for low and intermediate level waste and for very low level waste. Now, in developing the National Plan for Radioactive Waste Management we are trying to cover all categories of radioactive waste.

For some waste categories there are at present no long term management solutions, but the National Plan places the responsibility on waste producers for finding solutions and requires actions within a reasonable timescale.

T. KOSAKO (Japan): Regarding the ‘common framework’, within ICRP we have been discussing similar questions for over ten years. The inclusion of NORM presents different problems from those encountered in managing normal nuclear fuel cycle waste. The situations in which we encounter NORM are not usually like conventional ‘practice’ situations; they can be better

PANEL

described as ‘intervention’ situations — in the sense that they have often not been planned and are a legacy from the past. It is not possible to use the dose limits and constraints designed for the control of practices; a different type of thinking is necessary. The most relevant ICRP publication on this topic is ICRP Publication 82.

In this context, the Japanese Radiation Council has already set guidance levels for NORM and TENORM.

It is important that NORM is included in the discussion of a common framework.

C. McCOMBIE (Switzerland): Technical people need a common framework, and the public needs a common framework. Without it we would not be credible.

What bothers me is that we tend to talk about a common framework that is commensurate with the hazard. But some elements have been left out

— the volumes and the economics. Either the standards themselves or the approaches used have got to take account of volumes and economics.

Standards might differ, because we might guarantee 0.1 mSv/a for 10 000 years into the future for a deep geological repository, but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to guarantee achieving such safety criteria for a near surface facility with long lived waste in it. Using the same example, you can try to build your deep repository in such a way that you do not have to have institu-tional control forever but you cannot achieve the required degree of safety for mining waste on the surface without institutional control. In my view, therefore, ‘commensurate with the hazard’ has to be qualified with an ALARA-type qualification on the lines of ‘social and economic considera-tions being taken into account’. Otherwise, we shall again not be credible in a technical and a societal sense.

M.J. SONG (Republic of Korea): I would like to talk briefly about the common framework for the management of long lived intermediate level waste. At the beginning of the session, D. Louvat mentioned the linkages between waste classification and the disposal options, and after him R. Cailleton made a presentation about the French strategies. I think the French classification system and the actual and proposed disposal options are in close compliance with what the IAEA suggests, except in a few areas, such as NORM and TENORM, as T. Kosako mentioned. The other areas are tritium-bearing waste and sealed sources, as R. Cailleton mentioned. However, the grey area is the long lived intermediate level waste. For this waste, I think you can either have a separate repository or you can sink boreholes near the surface repository or the deep geological repository, whichever is possible. So I would like to ask D. Louvat whether it is possible to make clear recommenda-tions for this kind of waste.

SESSION IIb

D. LOUVAT (IAEA): The last three interventions were very much linked.

I agree with T. Kosako that ICRP Publication 82 is an excellent reference document, and I also agree with him that bringing NORM into the decision aiding process for radioactive waste management is a challenge. It is a challenge we are confronting at the IAEA, and we have several standards on NORM under development or about to be developed — but the solution will not be straightforward.

However, there is also a history. Most NORM waste is legacy waste. We have to realize also that what resulted from the past is sometimes very close to an intervention situation as defined in ICRP Publication 82.

We must do something. We cannot leave the situation as it was in the past.

This is the reason for taking NORM into consideration.

Some countries have already taken a decision, and we want to show that it is possible also for other IAEA Member States.

I disagree with C. McCombie about bringing economics and other factors into the equation. Behind the safety standards there is this very first principle that you should manage waste to protect the public, and everything should be done in accordance with this principle.

You may have noticed that with the type of framework we have proposed there is an acceptable solution and an unacceptable solution, and, in between, an inappropriate solution. What does ‘inappropriate’ mean? Does it mean inappropriate from a safety point of view but possibly appropriate when you are considering the local situation in terms of economics and other factors? Are we going to provide some clear indication in this document? That is the expec-tation, and I would say that it will depend on all of us. Once we start distrib-uting the draft, we are willing to accept any comments and any suggestions for improvement.

Finally, I think that the point made by T. Kosako is very important. All the underlying reasoning is based on very sound and still very useful documents like ICRP Publication 82.

T. KOSAKO (Japan): C. McCombie said that the economic situation is also important. But let us consider the situation regarding NORM, which appears everywhere, not only in legacy situations but also in present activities

— coal fly ash in power generation, scale in the oil industry, monazite and so on.

For application to these cases the intervention level will be decided by thinking not only in terms of the ideal but also in terms of the economic balance and social activities.

C. McCOMBIE (Switzerland): I would not like the word ‘economics’ to be taken too seriously. I am not saying that, if it is too expensive, we cannot

PANEL

make it safe. For ‘economics’ read ‘practicality’. We should not promise things that we cannot do. In the United States of America, and in some other countries, there was a promise made to clean up legacy sites to ‘green field’

status. If you had thought about it, you would have realized that it is not just a question of cost but of practicality. We lose credibility every time we say that we can do things that we end up not being able to do.

In the cases we have been hearing about, practicality is very closely tied to economics. You cannot take the whole surface of Hanford or Sellafield and dispose of it deep underground, which is probably what you would have to do if you wanted to maintain exactly the same standards.

A.J. HOOPER (United Kingdom): Perhaps we could now talk about stakeholder or public acceptance in the formulation of national policies or strategies. In the United Kingdom, we were intrigued by what happened recently in Canada where, with the involvement of a local community, it was decided that waste which — according to D. Louvat’s framework — ought probably to remain near the surface, should be placed in a deep geological repository.

In her presentation, M.V. Federline hinted that such matters are influential in United States policy. Perhaps she would like to comment on the role of public and stakeholder acceptance in the formulation of national strategies.

M.V. FEDERLINE (United States of America): Over time, we have developed our standards and requirements with public involvement, but how do we know when we get it right? I talked about defence in depth, and from a scientist’s standpoint I can convince myself that defence in depth addresses uncertainties. D. Louvat talked about putting material at a particular depth.

What about the public that says “keep it open and monitor it at depth for a good number of years — that will convince me that this is the right thing to do”? What should we do? Should we listen to the scientists, should we listen to the public, or should we do both?

M.J. SONG (Republic of Korea): We have quite a long history of public involvement, especially with regard to low level waste disposal sites. We have experienced several serious failures in trying to establish candidate sites even for low level waste. Now we are about to establish one candidate site, possibly in November.

M.V. Federline emphasized the importance of the management of knowledge, but my experience indicates that it is not a matter of knowledge management; it is rather about public perception. The public tends to listen to what the environmentalists and the anti-nuclear groups are saying rather than to what the licensee and the government are saying. So the more important

SESSION IIb

factor for us is how to cope with the environmentalists and the anti-nuclear groups and how to change the perception of the public.

R. CAILLETON (France): I should like to speak briefly about the way in which the French National Plan for Radioactive Waste Management was developed.

At the very outset, the safety authority invited all stakeholders to take part in a working group in order to help develop a draft plan. This included the waste producers environmental protection associations, Members of Parliament and also local representatives in order to have a diversity of points of view on the subject.

The fundamentals are the principles of safety and radiation protection, but inside this technical framework there is room for debate. That is why, from the very beginning, all kinds of stakeholders were invited to participate in the formulation of the draft plan. From July to the end of 2005 the draft plan will be available on a web site and open to public comment. After this period, the working group will discuss the comments and produce the final version of the plan.

A further comment — the plan to be issued at the end of 2005 or next year will not be definitive; it will not provide long term management solutions for all kinds of radioactive waste. It will be a step, and a few years later we will have to review the plan in order to determine whether we made real progress with the actions which were decided upon in 2005–2006 and then to set new priorities for the following years. So this is a step by step process.

A.J. HOOPER (United Kingdom): Perhaps we could now turn to the issue of regional repositories.

V. ŠTEFULA (Slovakia): When I talk about the SAPIERR project, I am often asked which country would be the host country.

There are some success stories connected with the volunteering approach for the siting of national repositories, for example, in the Republic of Korea, Finland, Belgium and Slovenia. In my view, if you are able to persuade the local public that the waste you are going to dispose of in their ‘backyard’ will be safe for a duration that exceeds the whole length of human civilization, then it is no problem for the public to accept the waste whether it is from a hospital or a nuclear reactor and regardless of the country of origin.

P. LIETAVA (Czech Republic): I am a little more sceptical. In my country, we tried to identify an appropriate site for a national deep geological repository but the exercise had to be stopped because of public opposition.

In relation to regional repositories, I think that we need to move from discussions to binding political decisions. That will be very difficult because, if you have a meeting where people from several countries are present, every country supports the idea of a regional repository if it is not going to be within

PANEL

its territory. So, the meeting ends and everyone goes home. In my view, we must therefore now find a way of moving forward — of transforming our knowledge about the advantages of regional repositories into binding political decisions by governments which agree not only to support the project but also to host the repository. That is a big task, and I do not know whether it is a task for the IAEA or for some other international organization.

D. LOUVAT (IAEA): I do not know whose task it should be. In my view, the process is a political decision making one which should be handled by the governments of the States concerned.

People often quote the IAEA’s Director General regarding regional solutions. But the Director General sees regional solutions as a way to ensure, in the first place, non-proliferation and security.

C. McCOMBIE (Switzerland): It is easy to say that, in a meeting of people from different countries, no country will volunteer to host the repository. If you bring together people from different parts of a single country and say that a radioactive waste repository is going to be built and ask who is prepared to host it, you get the same result. It is not a different issue. The last thing you should do is start a national programme or a multinational programme by trying to decide on the site at the very outset. The way to do it in the case of a multinational programme is exactly the same as in the case of a national programme. First the participants must agree on the need for the facility. If they do not agree that there is a common need, you will not arrive at a common solution. After you agree that there is a need for a common solution, then you can talk about the attributes, the choices. It is the same logical path as for a national facility.

I would hate to interpret the mind of my boss, but when the IAEA’s Director General is quoted he is quoted as also recognizing the economic and environmental benefits — not just the non-proliferation and security benefits.

It is a myth that the SAPIERR project is not realistic if there is no site. If that is the definition of ‘realism’, then there are about three realistic programmes under way in the world.

M.J. SONG (Republic of Korea): I am very much in favour of regional solutions. This issue is very important for small countries which have large nuclear power programmes — for example, my country and Taiwan, Province of China — and for countries which are big users of long lived radioisotopes.

Not only the general public, but also some scientists working in other fields are not confident about the safety of the disposal of radioactive waste, so I think it is a good idea to minimize the total number of repositories in the world.

I therefore favour a regional approach, especially in Asia. Japan is thinking about establishing a high level waste repository, but I do not think it

SESSION IIb

has been very successful so far. However, its programme will continue. As a backup it might be a good idea for it to participate in a multinational repository programme for high level waste disposal.

T. KOSAKO (Japan): There is a question of equity concerning regional repositories. For example, we in Tokyo are benefiting from nuclear power generation taking place elsewhere in Japan while the people living near the nuclear power plants are exposed to a certain risk. Where is the equity?

Similarly, if one country receives the radioactive waste of another country, where is the equity?

V. ŠTEFULA (Slovakia): It is interesting that people never challenge the fact that, when you produce uranium from ore, you leave the mill tailings in the country where the ore was mined and export the uranium to be used in other countries. People are never worried about a lack of equity in this case.

C. McCOMBIE (Switzerland): It has been suggested that the estab-lishment of a multinational repository could be a national strategy. In my view, however, it would be foolish to have only that as your national strategy,

C. McCOMBIE (Switzerland): It has been suggested that the estab-lishment of a multinational repository could be a national strategy. In my view, however, it would be foolish to have only that as your national strategy,