Siting of geological repositories

Most countries are using or planning to use a site selection process in which several potential candidate sites are initially identified and the number of sites under consideration is reduced as more detailed information is gathered to describe the characteristics of the candidate sites, generally as described in IAEA Safety Series No.111-G-4.1 “Siting of Geological Disposal Facilities”. IAEA Safety Series No. 111-G-4.1 describes a process typically consisting of four stages (i.e. conceptual studies and planning, area survey, site characterization, and site confirmation). However, the approaches actually being taken in the Member States are not always divided into the four stages specified in IAEA Safety Series No.111-G-4.1, and the definition of the stages varies considerably from country to country. In some countries (e.g. Japan, USA), the site selection approach is stipulated

5 The Russian Federation has identified the multiple sites.

in legislation. In other countries (e.g. Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland) the strategies for siting were developed by the implementing organization and reviewed or approved by the government.

Several Member States are either planning to use, or are already using, an Underground Research Laboratory (URL) in the process of site selection. These URLs are planned to be utilized in two basic ways:

Methodological facilities – Some countries are using or planning to use a URL to conduct R&D, evaluate technologies for geological repositories and to demonstrate the viability of geological disposal to the public (e.g. Canada, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland). In these cases, the URL is not always constructed at a repository candidate site.

Site characterization facilities – Most countries that have specified site selection plans are planning to utilize a URL for characterization of the candidate site⁶, to confirm that a repository built at the site could be operated safely. Japan plans to conduct site characterization investigations in underground facilities to provide final confirmation of the adequacy of their proposed repository, in addition to the work they will do in a methodological facility. Similar site characterization activities have already been conducted in the USA prior to selection of the Yucca Mountain site. In Finland and Sweden, investigations leading to selection of candidate sites were performed through use of boreholes, with further investigations in tunnels at the site of the proposed repository. The Russian Federation also plans to conduct investigations in URLs before site selection, unless sufficient information is found to already be available from activities completed earlier in the siting process. France is conducting an R&D programme in the Bure URL.

2.6.2. Development of siting criteria

The responses provided in Annex demonstrate that the siting criteria differ from country to country.

Furthermore, several of the participating countries have not progressed far enough to describe the process they will use. Nevertheless, the countries having site selection processes defined appear to be taking one of three general approaches, as summarized below:

Approach 1 – The governments (in particular, regulatory authorities) are generally responsible for developing siting criteria in every stage or phase (Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Lithuania, Switzerland),

Approach 2 – Implementing organizations are responsible for developing siting criteria during the initial stage or phase of site screening (e.g. during the stage or phase prior to final determination of a candidate site). The government may review these criteria, as well as the results of investigations that are carried out based on the criteria (Belgium, Finland, Sweden),

Approach 3 – Regulatory authorities are responsible for developing the siting criteria and an implementing organization is in charge of preparing guidelines for use of the criteria. The criteria and the guidelines are coordinated between the organizations (USA).

In general, the criteria and guidelines that have been considered in many countries address such issues as characteristics of the geological formation (size and depth), tectonic activity (e.g. volcanism, earthquakes or fault movement), radionuclide transport mechanisms (e.g. ground water), environmental impacts, underground natural resources, proximity to nuclear fuel cycle facilities upstream of disposal, and proximity to densely populated areas. Some countries include requirements for acceptance by local populations in the siting criteria. Others cover this consideration at other times in their repository approval processes.

In most countries, decision makers and affected and interested parties are informed of the potential for repository acceptability at each stage of the siting process by the results of repository performance assessments.

6 Such facilities are not necessarily referred to as URLs in the countries that use them.

2.6.3. General procedures for decision making in each phase and stage

The site selection procedures differ so widely from country to country that it is not feasible to present a single explanation that would represent all of them. Nevertheless, the decision on whether to proceed further after each stage or phase is generally made by the government, including participation by the Minister responsible for disposal of HLW and/or SNF, after comprehensive investigations of information gathered by an implementing organization. In some countries, such as Finland, France, Hungary, Switzerland, and the USA, the Parliament (or its equivalent) is involved as one of the entities responsible for the final decision on site selection, or approval.

In many countries, opportunities are provided for members of the public and representatives of affected local governments to express their opinions and provide comments on the site selection process. Canada, Japan, Switzerland and the USA are examples of countries that provide such opportunities at each stage or phase of the siting process, often including public hearings and/or presentations by the implementing organization, followed by opportunities for public and local governments to express opinions and provide comments⁷. Countries such as the Czech Republic, Finland and Sweden provide similar opportunities for public and local government to comment at the stage or phase before initiation of physical investigations at a proposed site (via either surface or borehole examinations).

2.6.4. Role of local governments

Local governments (authorities) are considered to be any level of government lower than the federal or central government of a Member State (i.e. the Bundesländer in Germany; a prefecture or city in Japan; a community or canton in Switzerland; a municipality in Sweden; and a state or county in the USA)⁸.

Prior to construction of a repository for disposal of HLW and/or SNF, numerous licenses and permits must be obtained, not only from the federal/central government, but also from local governments.

These permits and licenses address both nuclear safety and other topics (e.g. regional land use planning).

The role of local governments in the decision making process for waste disposal varies significantly from country to country. In some countries, local governments have roles that are specifically defined by legislation. In other countries, the interactions with local governments are left in the hands of the implementing organizations.

One common generic mechanism used for interfacing with local governments is through preparation of an environmental impact assessment (EIA). Local government involvement in the environmental impact assessment process generally consists of requiring the implementing organization to request representatives of local government(s) to review and make comments on the study. These comments are then considered by the implementing organization and/or government organizations in deciding whether and how to proceed with development of a repository. Members of the public often also participate in the environmental impact assessments.

On the other hand, in the countries that have laws applicable specifically to HLW and/or SNF disposal, additional opportunities for local government involvement are often specified. These include interactions such as the following:

7 Many countries provide such opportunities for public and stakeholder involvement in later stages of the repository development process as well.

8 In countries with Federal Governments (e.g. Germany, Russia, Switzerland, the USA), the “State” level of government (between the municipality and national levels) plays a significant role and is often not considered to be a “local”

government. However, in this discussion, the State government level has been considered along with the lower levels of government because there are many similarities between the roles played by the combination of State and lower level governments in countries with Federal Governments and the roles played by the local governments in countries that do not have Federal Governments.

Allowing local governments to conduct independent scientific and technical reviews of studies carried out by the implementing organization and submit comments to the implementing organization and the final decision maker, such as the federal/central government (USA),

Requiring the implementing organization to obtain local government concurrence on decisions to proceed to the next stage or phase, and to the decision of the final decision maker on a candidate site (Finland, Sweden),

Allowing the local government to conduct a repository safety assessment, under delegation from the federal/central government (Germany).

In the case of the USA, the host State government is allowed to veto the site selection made by the central government, and has done so. However, the US Congress also has the right to override this State government veto. In Finland and Sweden, the siting process could not have moved forward if the local municipalities had not approved the selection of candidate sites.

2.6.5. Financial assistance

Many governments of the countries that are conducting repository-siting investigations provide financial assistance to local governments and communities. This financial assistance is used differently from country to country, but is generally used to support activities to promote public understanding and public involvement in the disposal project (e.g. review of studies and environmental impact assessments prepared by the implementing organization, participation in public hearings and consultations). However, in France and the USA, for example, there are also cases in which financial assistance is provided for “regional development” or as “payments in lieu of taxes”.

Local governments are allowed to use such financial assistance for whatever purpose they determine to be appropriate, even if such uses have nothing to do with development of a geological repository.

Since the approach taken is different in each of the Member States that participated in this study, please refer to the national frameworks for more detailed descriptions of the specific actions taken on this subject.

None of the participating Member States have defined the processes that might be used to provide financial assistance to local governments and communities for the time period after completion of repository site selection. This topic will be considered in more detail and implemented later in the geological repository life cycle. Nevertheless, there is a general expectation that both financial assistance and public involvement and transparency activities will continue in later stages of the SNF and/or HLW disposal process (e.g. after completion of the siting process). As an example, some countries, the USA in particular, are planning to provide financial assistance to local governments to assist them in preparing SNF and/or HLW for transportation through their jurisdictions on the way to their geological repositories.