2.
The Scientific Forum heard that much had been done but that
much more was needed to address what the Chair of the Forum
referred to as the most perplexing topic in nuclear technology
today. The Chair described the ‘realities’, which lay at the
core of the issue as essentially being the physical, technological
and social realities. The physical reality is simple, radioactive
waste exists and volumes, although comparatively low, are increasing.
The technological reality is that the technology exists to safely
manage radioactive wastes now and in the near future but there
are issues about geological disposal. The social reality is
characterized by the gap in perception between the scientific
community and the public at large.
3. The first session set the scene on the current status
of radioactive waste management in the world today, and discussed
the strategy needed to develop a national repository for spent
nuclear fuel. A major issue to emerge was that relating to the
classification of waste which is different in different countries.
‘Waste’ was not seen as a scientific term and only a few countries
appeared to use the IAEA defined terminology. The use of so
many different national definitions makes it difficult to understand
and compare the size and scope of the problem and leads to unnecessary
public concerns. It is hoped that the introduction of the Joint
Convention will provide an opportunity to achieve more consistency
in the classification of radioactive wastes.
4.
It was clear from the presentations and the discussion that
the management of radioactive waste needs to be addressed in
a consistent and comprehensive way. The question was raised
of how to handle issues relating to radioactive waste management
which have solution times longer than terms of office of the
political decision makers. The role of the regulatory body is
important in addressing this issue as it can provide the continuity
of oversight needed. Substantial progress has been made in reducing
the waste arisings per kWh and there is now recognition that
the best way to manage waste is to minimize arisings so as to
reduce the disposal burden. In relation to disposal of high
level waste, experience has shown that it is counter-productive
for the scientific community to claim that they know all the
answers and that the risks well into the future can be calculated
with confidence. A more sustainable approach is to recognize
that to gain public acceptance it is necessary to take time
and not try to rush to premature decisions, which are likely
to be negative. A carefully planned step by step approach, which
involves the public and gives time to build trust and confidence,
is necessary for success. This approach must be flexible to
the extent that it recognizes that there are uncertainties and
so making provisions to permit retrievability of waste is now
seen as an essential prerequisite for progress on disposal.
There is also a need to have a clear understanding of what is
meant by retrievability.
5. The second session looked at the ‘technological’ reality
of what is being done, with examples of developments in a number
of countries including a country with a major nuclear power
programme and a country with no nuclear power programme. In
each case it was shown that with the exception of the disposal
of high level and other long lived wastes, well planned radioactive
waste management programmes are possible. The technology exists
but it is essential to recognize that the solutions depend upon
the waste type and advantage can be gained by classifying waste
in relation to, inter alia, radioactive half-life. The Session
also discussed the use of novel technologies, which could be
used to design power reactors, that did not produce any actinide
or transuranic waste, and which transmute long lived fission
products. The technologies proposed prompted some lively discussion
with the practicality of turning a theoretical concept into
a practical design, being the key concern. Nevertheless, it
was felt that whilst further research is justified, transmutation
on a practical engineering scale is far from certain and the
prospect of transmutation should not prevent countries taking
positive actions on waste treatment and disposal as soon as
possible.
6. The third session included a very comprehensive review
of the key issues associated with radioactive waste that were
discussed at the Cordoba conference. It is clear that indefinite
surface storage of waste is not a sustainable solution and progress
must be made to provide an integrated solution to radioactive
waste management that includes disposal. International repositories
could offer a means for countries with small nuclear power programmes
or without nuclear power programmes to dispose of their high
activity and long-lived waste without incurring the very high
costs of a national repository programme. However, it was clearly
recognized that international repositories are controversial
and that the disposal of waste is primarily a national responsibility.
The Forum heard a report on the development of controls on international
transport of radioactive waste. The comprehensive nature of
the report gave reassurance that the issue is being addressed
and that an effective regulatory system is in place to ensure
transport safety. A significant development has been the introduction
of the INF (Irradiated Nuclear Fuel) requirements for the safe
carriage of irradiated nuclear fuel, plutonium and high-level
radioactive waste on board ships into the mandatory SOLAS (Safety
of Life at Sea) convention.
7.
The Forum also considered the special problem of disused sealed
sources that had been used for medical, research and industrial
purposes. The issue of how to deal with sealed sources when
they reached the end of their useful lives was discussed. The
view of the Forum was that spent sealed sources should be handled
as part of an integrated waste management strategy. There is
clearly an issue for countries that do not have nuclear power
programmes and may therefore not have a radioactive waste management
programme or an effective regulatory body. The issue of the
use of boreholes to dispose of sealed sources prompted a lively
discussion. Whilst it was recognized that boreholes provided
a relatively simple and inexpensive solution, a borehole used
for this purpose was a radioactive waste repository and should
therefore have a comprehensive safety case to justify its use.
8.
The Forum heard the views of a panel of distinguished experts
on the key issues relating to radioactive waste management,
but mainly focussed on disposal. The Chair posed three questions
that were at the heart of the issue. The first asked why there
was a problem with radioactive waste. The general consensus
of the panel was that the problem existed because the issue
was a social as well as a technical one. The second question
asked who or what was missing from the deliberations necessary
to achieve consensus. The panel generally agreed that the public(s),
politicians, policy makers and the media needed to be engaged
in the decision making process. The third question asked where
we go from here. The response from the panel was to continue
the dialogue, continue to develop and have confidence in the
engineering and scientific proposals for effectively managing
waste, recognize that resolution will take time and plan to
provide solutions to the options that are or will be available
to society.
9.
The lively panel discussion, which included participation from
the floor, can be summarized as follows:
-- technological
solutions to the safe management of radioactive waste exist, but
public acceptance is needed;
-- a structured participatory process is needed for decision making;
-- consensus of all parties is unlikely and therefore a formal,
transparent decision making process with public participation
is essential;
-- the decision making process needs to be step wise with the
ability to reverse decisions at a later stage;
-- opinion formers responsible for political decisions have not
yet entered the debate;
-- progress has to be made on a national level particularly in
relation to the siting of repositories;
-- it is important to have a stable legal and regulatory framework;
-- international co-operation in the development of technology
and safety standards can supplement national programmes; and
-- clarity is needed on the application of the terms ‘retrievability’
and ‘reversibility’.
10.
The panel advised the IAEA that its role included facilitating
international exchange of experience on technical and social
issues, collaboration on creating opportunities for R&D, and
continuing peer reviews of programmes and activities in Member
States. It concluded that these exchanges were a supplement
to, not a substitute for, national discussions and programmes.
Given that the development of such programmes will take considerable
time, it was not felt appropriate, to hold a single global forum
involving stakeholders at this time, but the IAEA could play
a role in promoting active engagement between the scientific
community and society in general.
11.
The Forum provided an excellent opportunity to discuss this
important issue and the number of participants and their lively
interventions showed the strength of interest in the topic.
