WHY ARE WE CONCERNED ABOUT SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL?

From some perspectives, spent nuclear fuel might seem to be a small, even inconsequential issue. The total worldwide volumes of spent fuel, for example, are relatively small. The volume of radioactive waste is dwarfed by the volume of total industrial toxic waste, and spent nuclear fuel, in turn, comprises a small percentage of the total radioactive waste volume. In the UK, for example, spent nuclear fuel comprises only 2% of all radioactive waste by volume from nuclear power plants. According to figures from the US government, after more than 30 years of operation the nuclear power plants in the USA (more than 100) have produced a total volume of just over 50 000 tons of spent nuclear fuel, which is quite small compared with the over 98 million tonnes of waste ash produced annually from electric utilities fuelled by coal.

The cost of management of spent nuclear fuel also represents a small fraction of the total cost of nuclear power generation: According to a recent OECD/NEA study, the cost of spent nuclear fuel management accounts for only 1–5% of the cost of nuclear power generation. From a cost perspective then the power industry is relatively insensitive to strategies and policies concerned with spent nuclear fuel management.

Yet spent nuclear fuel has characteristics and hazards that make its management particularly challenging. Although it constitutes only a small fraction of the total radioactive waste volume in national waste inventories, it contains most of the radioactivity. In the UK about half of the radioactivity in the national radioactive waste inventory can be attributed directly to spent nuclear fuel — and this rises to over 97% if high level radioactive waste and plutonium, as by-products of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing, are included. The combination of the fission products and the actinides associated with spent nuclear fuel require that attention be paid to near term safety issues associated with potential external radiation exposure and to heat generation, as well as to the management and containment of extremely long lived radionuclides.

Furthermore, the management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel is at the heart of the debate on the future of nuclear power. It seems likely that there will be a worldwide resurgence in nuclear power generation in response to national desires for greater energy security and independence. The availability of petroleum may depend on political regimes that are unstable or hostile, and its price and supply may therefore fluctuate. In contrast, the most recent OECD/NEA–IAEA ‘Red Book’ shows that uranium resources are distributed globally and that they can provide fuel supplies for an estimated 250 years for all existing nuclear power plants. This could be readily extended to thousands of years by adopting reprocessing and advanced fuel cycles. Concerns over global warming are also prompting a re-evaluation of nuclear power.

However, the failure to achieve meaningful progress in establishing and implementing disposal solutions for radioactive waste and spent fuel is a key issue in the argument against the expansion of nuclear power. This contributes to perceived risks and a reluctance (in market driven economies) to invest in nuclear power. There is concern about the potential security and non-prolifer-ation risks associated with spent nuclear fuel storage. In the USA, for example, considerable attention has been devoted to evaluating the safety of spent nuclear fuel in storage pools if threatened with terrorist attacks. The end result of these various competing concerns is that the debate continues worldwide about strategies for the management, processing, storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel.

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE MANAGEMENT OF SPENT FUEL

3. WHERE DO WE AGREE REGARDING MANAGEMENT OF

SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL?

It is important to acknowledge that storage of spent nuclear fuel is already being successfully implemented today. With active surveillance and maintenance, the safety and security of storage can be relied upon for the near term and for decades into the future.

When considering the broader perspective it should also be remembered that there is, in fact, already wide agreement on the basic principles of the management of spent nuclear fuel. These principles are formalized in the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management (the Joint Convention).

There is also affirmation that geological disposal is the only sustainable strategy available today that provides long term protection from the hazards of radioactive waste. The OECD/NEA’s Collective Opinions (in 1991 and 1995) concluded that geological disposal:

(a) Is responsive to fundamental inter- and intra-generational equity concerns;

(b) Is technologically feasible and sound, and that assessment methods are available today to evaluate adequately and give confidence in safety, now and in the future;

(c) Represents a ‘sustainable’ solution because it is both passive and permanent;

(d) May be implemented in a step-wise manner to leave open the possibility of adaptation to societal progress and demands.

These conclusions remain valid today. All countries that have made a policy decision on the final step for the management of spent nuclear fuel have selected geological disposal as the end point. Furthermore, in the light of increased concern regarding terrorist incidents and other threats, geological disposal offers protection from human intrusion. An IAEA position paper on the topic stresses that putting hazardous materials underground increases their security (The Long Term Storage of Radioactive Waste: Safety and Sustaina-bility (2003)).

There are, however, significant changes emerging in the respective roles of storage and disposal. These and other factors indicate that there is a need to re-examine the strategies and priorities for management of spent nuclear fuel.

4. WHAT IS AN ACCEPTABLE END POINT FOR THE