1. Multinational Initiatives for Long-Term Spent Fuel Management - an update on current international projects - Multinational Initiatives for Long-Term Spent Fuel Management - an update on current international projects - Neil Chapman & Charles McCombie Arius Association, Switzerland Ewoud Verhoef COVRA, Netherlands IAEA: Spent Fuel Management from Power Reactors, Vienna, June 2010

2. Power Reactor Commissioning (data from WNA reactor database)

3. Amount of SF worldwide: tHM x 1000 Heading for half a million.... Generated Reprocessed In store

4. Operational Dates: Spent Fuel & HLW Repositories....?.Belgium: after 2025 Bulgaria: openChina: after 2040 Czech Republic: c.2065Finland: c.2020 France: c.2025Germany: open Hungary: 2047Italy: open Japan: c.2035Lithuania: open Netherlands: after 2100Romania 2049 Slovakia: 2037Slovenia: 2066 Spain: openRep. of Korea: open Sweden: c.2020Switzerland: c.2040 United Kingdom: c.2070USA: open

5. The situation, the problem.....and one element of a solution Storage capacity is filling up in many countries Numerous new NPPs are proposed worldwide Number and distribution of SF storage locations could increase markedly over next 30 years Take-back of SF appears not to be a working option: major global fuel cycle initiatives remain largely just initiatives Large-scale recycling is a long way off...if ever? Disposal is expensive and hard to implement Sharing disposal regionally would help to move timescales forwards

6. Topics Siting a multinational repository - how? Europe - the ERDO and its working group Adapting the ERDO model for other regions?

7. Shared SF Disposal - the Siting Problem...but there is a way forward, modelled on the best international practice being pursued today “But which country will be the host?..you will never find that a country is willing to host a repository for other people’s waste”

8. Prerequisites to identification of potential host sites or countries 1.Recognition of a common need for a repository 2.Transparent specification of ALL requirements to be fulfilled 3.Establish, document and discuss pros and cons of hosting a facility 4.Establish TRUST in the potential implementing organisation Siting an international repository will face the same problems as a national repository – in both cases it is NOT something you do at the start of a programme…..

9. A host and its neighbours.... NEIGHBOUR Community County Region Country HOST Community County Region Country...a matter of scale - not principle, nor process

10. Nuclear Engineering International, May 2008...a bottom-up, volunteer approach from communities

11. An approach to siting... bottom-up, staged, volunteer-based staged volunteer model incorporating stakeholder involvement at all stages technically guided at start - but only to exclude clearly unsuitable regions incorporates flexibility to evaluate objectively any proposals that might emerge from volunteer communities, or regions, or countries underpinning: any location not obviously unsuitable on basis of existing knowledge is worth considering on its merits (UK, Japan) many different geological environments can provide acceptable isolation and containment conditions; different repository concepts have been designed to take advantage of this range volunteer location might be rejected after only limited investigations, if too difficult to make a reliable safety case or too costly to adapt designs to site conditions essential element: maintain flexibility, not exclude interested communities if there is a realistic likelihood that they could prove suitable

12. Sensitive questions...... What is the appropriate community/region level of volunteering? Must volunteer countries already have identified potential host communities? Does government of a country have to volunteer actively or, more passively, simply agree not to block any local volunteers? Can local communities volunteer before national agreements are reached? At which of the above levels is consent to volunteer required? How does one define sufficient acceptance at each of the levels? Who has veto or withdrawal rights and at which project stages can these be exercised? Who negotiates levels and distribution of benefits for volunteers?

13. How would it work in practice? A group of countries (e.g. ERDO) comes together to explore possibility of sharing a geological repository wide publicity to project explain national and community benefits announce launch of a volunteer process Involve wide range of national and international stakeholders to establish common set of technically based exclusion criteria national databases play central role and national agencies (e.g. geological surveys) pivotal in applying the factors Communities in non-excluded areas in all countries invited to express interest (on non-committing basis) in possibility of being a host national governments agree not to stand in the way of this process – some may actively encourage it national governments free to solicit specific volunteer communities that might have particular interest or particularly favourable characteristics

14. Degrees of Commitment Up to pre-defined ‘point of commitment’ (e.g. after several years of site investigations) interested communities & national governments free to withdraw Partner countries might enter the project at different stages. can’t make realistic estimate of costs or scale of benefits and impacts to host country and community until largest partners are known illustrates that too early a commitment on hosting could be inappropriate Essence of model: takes some of the burden of leadership of a very sensitive project off national governments that may be reluctant to be in the vanguard of such a programme Requires only that national government acknowledges and supports democratic decision powers of local communities

15. Putting local communities first....act in an international arena....consider themselves as potential contributors, not just to meeting a national challenge, but to solving a regional or multinational problem relatively new in planning and decision-making, although elements of such a process are already visible in the EU farsightedness and economic and societal benefits that would accrue may make siting a shared repository considerably less difficult than critics of multinational solutions assert

16. ERDO-WG Mission Statement.......work together to address common challenges of safely managing the long-lived radioactive wastes in our countries........investigate feasibility of establishing a formal, joint European waste management organization........carry out all necessary groundwork to enable establishment of a European Repository Development Organization as a working entity and present a consensus proposal to our governments.....if sufficiently broad consensus is achieved by our governments or their representatives, ERDO will be established at the end of this process.

17. ERDO-WG, ERDO and ERO ERDO Europe an Reposit ory Develop ment Organis ation ERDO-WG Working Group to lay the foundations for the ERDO ERO Europ ean Repo sitor y Orga nisati on 2009  2011  2020-25 Investigation of Sites Preferred Site: trigger for ERO Binding host agreements times uncertain/flexible

18. State of Development Four meetings since January 2009 Terms of Reference for ERDO-WG Draft Operating Guidelines for ERDO Draft Model Constitution for ERDO Draft Cost Sharing Model for ERDO Outline Approach to Siting for ERDO

19. Some Key Elements of ERDO Model Co-operative, operating solely for benefit of member countries on a not- for-profit, shared risk basis Member countries must have national strategic plan for RWM that meets their obligations (Joint Convention & any EC Directives) Member countries with active or past nuclear power programmes expected to have active, parallel national programme for geological disposal on own territory to fulfil international obligations Members fund agreed programme of work proportionate to an estimate of their inventory of wastes for geological disposal (cash; in-kind contributions) Work does not interfere with or adversely affect any national waste management plans (member and other countries) – expected to work symbiotically with national programmes to share R&D and technologies and produce cost-benefits

20. EU Directives on radioactive waste management IAEA Joint Convention National Government Strategic plan for radioactive waste management National Implementer Agency ERDO GDF Siting and R&D programme National GDF siting and R&D programme National long-lived waste & SF store(s) ERDO National LLW repository siting and R&D programme National LLW repository ERDO interim storage facilities Model A Countries with Nuclear Power....a model also exists for non- nuclear power member countries National GDF ERDO GDFs ENSREGENSREG National Regulatory Authorities Funding National GDF might be an ERDO GDF Shared R&D and technology Requirements Transfer if needed

21. ERDO end-point Develop repository operational plan (including any associated storage and other facilities) making safe and secure disposal available at minimum cost to member countries Ensure transparent oversight and use of most appropriate technologies and internationally recognised safety standards: ERDO may submit its work to: technical audit by IAEA to regulatory overview by European Nuclear Safety Regulator Group (ENSREG) or representatives & regulatory authorities of host country At an agreed time, ERDO will transition to a European Repository Organization (ERO). expected before repository enters licensing process, so license applicant will be the eventual operator of the facility ERDO member countries guaranteed access to ERO facilities at charges agreed before transition takes place

22. Existing and potential new nuclear power nations: can the ERDO model be adapted for use in other regions? Sources: IAEA, NEA, WNA, IEA, et. al., 2008 from www.ncitd.org Arius is starting a pilot project, supported by US charitable foundations, to explore the potential interest and adaptability of the concept in some of these regions Central and South America N. Africa Arabian Gulf S.E. Asia ERDO

23. ERDO-WG Outreach London ‘Times’, March 2010 “Eastern Europe to host EU nuclear waste storage facility” “Collective storage of radioactive wastes will slash industry costs”

24. Conclusions Sharing disposal is a possible way of enhancing global safety & security by ensuring earlier access of all nuclear nations to appropriate storage & disposal facilities There is a sensible approach to siting a shared repository ERDO represents a major step forward in Europe It may be attractive & adaptable to other regions It is not easy! The IAEA has an absolutely central role in encouraging and facilitating progress