Vienna, Austria
9 - 13 December

International Conference on Issues and Trends in Radioactive Waste Management

Summary by Mr. A.J. Baer
Conference President

Conference Information

The debate on 'conventional' radioactive waste management - that is, the management of solid operational waste from the nuclear industry - is focussing increasingly on high level waste (and spent fuel, where that is regarded as a waste). This may mean that the management of low level waste is considered to be solved, or it may simply be a question of prioritization, but there does appear to be a trend.

The pros and cons of disposal versus long-term storage are a major issue of debate, but not a new one. Some consider that geological structures are more stable and durable than human societies. Others do not trust science and prefer human control. However, there appears to be a need for the 'non-disposal' option (indefinite surface storage) to be subject to comprehensive safety assessments of the same rigour as those required for disposal.

There is a related trend towards greater acceptance of the idea that provision for retrievability and reversibility should be incorporated in repository design. At Córdoba, this was a relatively new issue, now it appears to be taken for granted as a realistic option. This is seen as something that is important politically, not as a technical necessity.

The trend I see developing is towards a 'middle-of-the-road' solution, i.e. a final repository that remains open, perhaps for hundreds of years, until a future generation decides to close it (or to retrieve the waste and pursue some other option).

Technical arguments - in terms of both safety and safeguards - would support a repository being 'open' (i.e. in a form such that the waste is relatively easily retrievable) as briefly as possible, but socio-political reasons appear to favour keeping a repository open for as long as necessary. If a 'middle of the road' approach is to be followed for non-technical reasons, then we should at least insist on certain technical conditions being met, particularly that the packaging of the waste should be suitable for 'final disposal', that all necessary information should be preserved, and that present knowledge on how to close the repository should be provided and passed on.

All of this seems to reflect a significant shift in the understanding of the principle of 'no undue burden for future generations'. Until quite recently this principle was usually understood to mean the current generation disposing of the waste they produced in a passively safe manner with little or no requirement for future monitoring or control. The trend is clearly towards a shift from an absolute law to a relative recommendation. Much greater weight is now being given, as a matter of principle, to not foreclosing options that future generations might want to adopt. This trend started to become apparent at Córdoba and it is now clear that there is a real tension between two competing 'principles'.

If I might add a parenthetical comment, we should not forget that any plan to maintain a site open for 300 years implies some assumptions about extrapolating present society conditions 300 years into the future. Arithmetic and history tell us that 2000 - 300 = 1700, and that in 1700 Louis XIV was on the French throne and Europeans in North America were few and confined to a few small colonies.

One other side issue is the need for clarity in terminology. For instance, there still seemed to be some confusion, even among the experts here, about exactly what the differences are between regulatory control, active institutional control and passive institutional control, or between active monitoring and passive monitoring. If we do not use consistent and well-defined terms among ourselves, we will find it even more difficult to discuss the issues with non-specialists.

The trend towards public acceptance based solutions is also apparent in the field of discharge control. You have already heard the discussion about OSPAR and the summary of Session 2, so I will not repeat it. The more general lesson, and an important issue, is the need for a more holistic approach. Not only should waste management be considered in the context of the entire fuel-cycle, but in that of its societal impact. Too many people do not see beyond the edge of their plate and do not realize the implication of their proposals. The trend towards zero emissions, rather than the traditional optimisation approach, is just one example. Many people wear blinkers, some at least do it on purpose - not always easy to tell the difference.

The management of disused sources is not a new issue, but clearly it has gained more attention since 11 September 2001. Perhaps it would be better to say it has gained the attention it deserves. The use of sources is very widespread, and so safe and cost-effective management options are needed. In this respect, boreholes are a possible disposal method.

There is a clear trend to encourage the return of sources to the manufacturer as the best way to ensure they are managed safely, but equally clearly there are a number of obstacles preventing this route from being used fully. Various actors could (and should) do more in this direction. Further concerted efforts are required. The issue needs to be resolved.

NORM wastes are now a well recognized issue. Because of the great variety of situations encountered, each case must be treated on its own merits, according to sound radioprotection principles and common sense.

According to present wisdom some NORM wastes will have to remain at surface under institutional control in perpetuity.

This means 'as long as we have not found the means to handle them differently'. (100-200 years?).

For clean-up operations of earlier practices, ICRP 82 has proposed some intervention levels. There is a trend not to follow them but to go down to lower (practice) levels.

This is much more expensive, but politically well received. Some countries however cannot afford the financial burden.

Examine implications for international organizations.

There is a lack of clear guidance on how to handle NORM wastes, site remediation and related areas. Recommendations on the part of the IAEA would be welcome, but these should be flexible enough to accommodate case-by-case management where appropriate.

Financing is an important issue in each of these areas, and inadequate financing is a problem. There should be more discussion of it. This is a language that all politicians understand.

Much has been achieved already in financing future costs of waste management, but improvements are always possible.

A conscious effort is clearly being made to open the waste management debate to non-technologists.

This is not a new trend but a stronger and clearer one than in the past.

Technologists recognize that they need help on issues such as trust, acceptance, credibility for instance.

Dialogue is essential but only possible where a minimum of common values exist. Otherwise we end up with two monologues. This is a serious issue.

Major issues

The relationship of technologists with others interested in or affected by radioactive waste management (stakeholders) is an issue. Different groups have different needs. Clear trend to recognize that we live in the real world of emotion and policies.

Cordoba recognized the issue, this Conference is trying to do something about it.

An issue for the IAEA?

The Conference has recognized and discussed the essential role of the socio-political component of the waste management issue. This issue will not go away. Technologists and technology alone cannot resolve it. Progress towards final disposal depends critically on socio-political considerations.

This Agency has built its reputation on the quality of its technical work. Is it able (willing?) to help us progress towards a resolution of socio-political issues that stand in the way of radioactive waste disposal? If it can, how will it do it?