169

Repository implementation

C. McCombie

McCombie Consulting, Gipf-Oberfrick, Switzerland

7.1. Legal and regulatory framework; organisational structures

In this chapter, the procedures for developing a deep geological repository are described. This involves many preparatory steps and practical implementation measures. These activities can, however, be successfully undertaken only if a proper legal and organisational framework has been established and only after a disposal strategy has been agreed by the responsible stakeholders. Therefore, these two issues are discussed first, in sections 7.1 and 7.2, before the actual activities commonly carried out are described in section 7.3. The long timescales to implementation and the novel nature of the task mean that the activities themselves must be carried out in stages and section 7.4 looks in some detail at suitable staging processes. Section 7.5 summarises, in tabular form, the current status of repository implementation in a number of countries. The chapter concludes with a look at the important questions of estimated costs of deep repositories and how the substantial financial requirements are met.

To ensure that the radioactive wastes in any country are managed safely, it is necessary to have an established legislative and regulatory framework and also to create the necessary organisations for implementation and for oversight of waste management operations and facility development. Guidance on the former issue is given in the Joint Convention of the IAEA (IAEA, 1997a). In Article 19 of the Convention it is specified that the legislative and regulatory framework must provide for:

1.the establishment of applicable national safety requirements and regulations for radiation safety;

2.a system of licensing of spent fuel and radioactive waste management activities;

3.a system of prohibition of the operation of a spent fuel or radioactive waste management facility without a licence;

4.a system of appropriate institutional control, regulatory inspection and documentation and reporting;

5.the enforcement of applicable regulations and of the terms of the licences;

6.a clear allocation of responsibilities of the bodies involved in the different steps of spent fuel and of radioactive waste management.

The annual reports to the IAEA on how individual countries are fulfilling their obligations are obtainable on the internet (IAEA, 2006); they reveal that virtually all nations have the required legal framework in place.

Establishing the organisations that will be responsible for all aspects of waste management is a larger task. It is also required by the Convention, however, which, e.g., states in Article 20 that:

‘‘Each Contracting Party shall establish or designate a regulatory body entrusted with the implementation of the legislative and regulatory framework referred to in Article 19, and provided with adequate authority, competence and financial and human resources to fulfil its assigned responsibilities.’’

The organisational structures that have been established vary from country to country. It is essential to allocate the functions required by the IAEA to specific bodies and to ensure that the proper degree of oversight and independent review of all activities is guaranteed. A key decision at the highest level is who has direct responsibility for implementation of waste management practices and, most particularly, for waste disposal. In some countries, the task is judged to be a national responsibility that should be tackled by the government. For example, in the USA the USDOE is directly responsible for disposal of all SF and HLW (both from commercial and military applications), and in Germany and Russia government departments (BfS and Rosatom, respectively) are directly responsible for all waste disposal.

This allocation of responsibilities can potentially lead to a conflict of interest, since the government is invariably also ultimately responsible for regulating the safety of nuclear installations. In fact, the Joint Convention explicitly requires that:

‘‘Each Contracting Party, in accordance with its legislative and regulatory framework, shall take the appropriate steps to ensure the effective independence of the regulatory functions from other functions where organizations are involved in both spent fuel or radioactive waste management and in their regulation.’’

In the USA, the conflict is resolved by separating the implementer, USDOE, from the regulator, the USNRC, at the highest possible level. In Germany, the specific regulatory function is delegated down to the La¨nder ( Federal States) in which the nuclear facilities are to be built. In Canada, the regulator is federal but the operators are provincial, which provides considerable political separation.

In most countries, however, the regulatory task is left to the government and the implementing task is given to those responsible for the production of the nuclear wastes. This can be done directly by making the nuclear power plant owners responsible, but often these owners join forces to form a dedicated waste management organisation. There are many examples: SKB (Sweden), Nagra (Switzerland), Posiva (Finland), ONDRAF (Belgium), ENRESA (Spain). In some countries, the waste management organisations are established by the government, although the financing is normally still provided by the waste producers. Examples here are PURAM (Hungary), ARAO (Slovenia), ENEA or SOGIN (Italy), NUMO (Japan) and, most recently, RATA in Lithuania.

Often, regulatory responsibility for oversight of nuclear activities, and in particular for licensing of facilities, is split. One largely technical organisation within the government will assess the safety and another, hierarchically higher entity will issue licences. For example, in the French, Finnish, Swedish and Swiss cases, licences are actually issued by

the government ministry above the regulatory body. Sometimes the regulatory process involves two organisations, one responsible for setting overall standards and the other for translating these into enforceable regulations. This is the case in the USA, where these roles are allocated, respectively, to the EPA and USNRC. Finally, the complex of entities involved in regulation often includes various advisory groups whose function is to provide expert advice. These are separate from the advisory groups that many implementing agencies also use to advise on and review national waste management programmes.

Table 7.1 provides an overview of the regulatory arrangements in a number of selected countries. The implementing body is the organisation with direct responsibility for siting, constructing and operating waste management facilities. The overall safety requirements are set by the standards body and this body, or a further regulatory review body, is charged with the oversight function needed to ensure compliance with the standards. Legal permits required for operation of the facilities may come from the regulator or from a higher government agency. Finally, the various government bodies often rely on advisory groups to provide in-depth technical and/or strategic guidance.

Table 7.1

Overview of some regulatory arrangements

a Note that many of the implementing agencies also have advisory bodies, with varying degrees of independence. Implementing Agency: Organisation responsible for preparing for and/or operating waste management facilities (i.e., repositories, with the exception of Canada and the UK that have no policy committing them to geological disposal).

Standards Body: National body responsible for setting environmental radiological standards required to be met by a repository and associated facilities.

Regulatory Review: Organisation that verifies the technical adequacy of analyses provided by the implementing organisation in support of permit or licence applications.

Permitting Authority: Organisation that issues permits or licences for activities related to disposal facility. Advisory Body: Any independent (of licensing authority and implementing agency) body created to advise national or local governments on radioactive waste issues.