period of seven years – those that had offered themselves as volunteers following extensive publicity from SKB – to discover which, if any, might prove suitable for siting a repository. The aim of these feasibility studies, initially desk-based but followed by some ground surveys, was to define areas within the municipal boundaries which, from a geoscientific standpoint, would prove suitable for carrying out detailed investigations. Any of these municipalities were able to withdraw after the completion of these feasibility studies and in fact two did following referenda. Any municipalities that were selected for detailed investigations could also withdraw at this stage and one did so. Two municipalities remained where detailed site investigations started in 2003.

The process of asking for volunteer municipalities in Japan is somewhat similar to that which took place in Sweden, but is several years behind the Swedish programme. The plan for selecting a repository site uses a three-stage process, as specified in the Final Disposal Act of 2000:

Selection of Preliminary Investigation Areas (PIAs)

Selection of Detailed Investigation Areas (DIAs)

Selection of a Repository Site

NUMO are applying certain exclusion criteria or factors, based on geological attributes associated with the dynamic tectonic conditions present in Japan, which relate to the presence of Quaternary volcanoes, active faults and mineral reserves, and rates of uplift (NUMO, 2002, 2004). These factors are described in terms of both national and site-specific evaluation factors and are known as the Evaluation Factors for Qualification (EFQ), and referred to as NEF (Nationwide Evaluation Factors) and SSEF (Site-specific Evaluation Factors). NUMO are currently searching for volunteer communities where, following a literature survey of the available geological and other information, they will decide whether to select any communities in which PIAs can be located.

The aspect of volunteering in Finland has also been somewhat different, in that sites were initially selected for investigation without requesting volunteers, using a relatively simple system in which potential sites were scored on geological, environmental and other attributes. Permission to carry out any investigations, however, required the agreement of both the respective municipality council and the landowners on whose land the boreholes would be drilled. Following a failure to obtain permission at one site, a more proactive approach was followed which resulted in invitations from several municipalities to TVO (now Posiva) to carry out investigations. The commitment to these investigations by the municipalities was made easier by the fact that they were conscious of their right of veto of any future repository development (see McEwen and

¨ ¨

Aikas (2000) for details).

4.1.3. Pragmatic/technically led

This approach is exemplified by early attempts in the UK to find sites for the deep disposal of ILW (and before that for LLW and HLW) and is characterised by an unsophisticated survey, analysis and plan process which focused on geological factors to determine the location of potential sites, by a lack of public consultation prior to the identification of sites and by frequent shifts in policy, which reflected the difficulty in securing permission to investigate or develop a site.

Underpinning this approach was a lack of trust and support for the nuclear industry on the part of the public, coupled with a well organised and articulate opposition to what were viewed as poorly justified, imposed decisions. Despite the problems that such an approach demonstrably had in another democratic country, a similar approach was recently taken in the ROC (Republic of China, or Taiwan) for the disposal of LLW. For political reasons, the small, thinly populated island of Little Chiu Yu, which lies some 80 km from the coast of mainland China (Peoples Republic of China, PRC) and 320 km from the coast of the ROC, was chosen and then a site characterisation programme was planned. Noticeably, compensation for the island’s small population of (generally) subsistence fishermen and farmers was seen to play a significant role in dealing with the local community.

Most recently, pressure from the PRC and criticism of the approach at home led to the cancellation of this programme in 2003, followed by the announcement of a new site on the south-east coast of the ROC in 2005 (AEC, 2006). Again, this would seem to have been a very political decision as the new site is the closest part on the main island to the existing, temporary waste storage facility on Orchid Island, which lies to the east-south- east of the new site.

In November 2005, voters in the city of Gyongju in south-eastern South Korea (Republic of Korea, ROK) overwhelmingly agreed to host a national repository for LLW and MLW (L/MLW). This followed a change in tack by the government following repeated failure in the 1980s and 1990s and, most recently, an aborted attempt to site a L/MLW repository and interim storage facility for SF on the island of Wido, in the Yellow Sea near Yonggwang. This latest failure came about after the government (and some local senior politicians) had summarily chosen the site in 2003, leading to violent protests and a country-wide referendum which rejected the proposal. Although this was ruled illegal by the government soon afterwards, it finally abandoned the proposed site in 2004.

During 2005, the government resumed its search for an L/MLW repository site and offered two different incentives: primarily, significant compensation for the volunteer community and, secondly, a promise to exclude the community from the site selection process for a SF repository. Four communities then came forward and the government decided to offer the facility to the community which showed the greatest support in a referendum – Gyongju being the victor. It remains to be seen precisely which approach will be taken for a future SF repository in the ROK.

4.1.4. Centralised/geologically led

This approach is typified by the situation in France pre-Bataille (Bataille, 1991), in which the search for sites was based on an expert analysis of the geology and hydrogeology of candidate sites, with the apparent exclusion of non-geological factors (e.g., Numark et al., 1989). Public relations programmes were well developed and, previous to that, had generally been successful in securing public support after the identification of a selected site (e.g., for a nuclear power plant). In France, there is a very centralised, national decision-making process which concentrates effective power in the hands of the national government, so that it has been possible to override local and regional objections in the national interest – and, in the past, this applied to repository sites. There has been a general acceptance of technical institutions and general trust and, indeed,

deference to government agencies. The failure of the site selection programme for HLW disposal, however, resulted in the publication of the Bataille Report (Bataille, 1991) and a marked shift towards a more open, participatory approach to repository development. The current French programme of research and development and the construction of at least one URL marks the end of the centralised/geologically led approach in France (Bataille, 1993) and probably elsewhere.

4.1.5. Conclusions to be drawn

The approaches which have been described can be envisaged as different stages along a continuum of increasing sophistication and openness. This reflects the fact that, generally speaking, the development of site selection methodologies has tended with time towards more participatory procedures which specify impacts, acknowledge value judgements and risks and encourage self-selection rather than imposed decisions. Thus, more sophisticated, advocacy led procedures have tended to replace pragmatic, closed site selection exercises (with the exception of programmes such as in the ROC), with the public’s views being canvassed at an earlier stage, as authorities recognise the sensitivity of equity issues (i.e., the effect on property values, the level of possible compensation, etc.) associated with the siting of nuclear facilities. The information that the public is entitled to expect to be provided, and the extent to which public involvement is encouraged during the design and operation a site selection programme, have both increased over this period.

The extent to which advocacy-based approaches will be any more successful in terms of securing the implementation of repository development may, however, hinge on the ability to convince recipient communities that they will be adequately consulted and compensated (although not necessarily in the monetary sense). The issue of compensation has, e.g., given rise to controversy in the selection of LLW disposal sites in Canada and the USA, where it has been considered a form of bribe. Advocacy led approaches appear useful as a means of overcoming initial opposition to schemes, but experience in Canada suggests that, once the selection process focuses on a relatively few short-listed sites, public opinion can become galvanised and potential opportunities rapidly disappear. A similar effect was seen during the site selection in the UK for an ILW disposal site (Chapman and McEwen, 1991) and in Switzerland for the sites for L/ILW disposal (Kowalski et al., 1986).

Overall, it would appear that, in the absence of widespread public support for nuclear power in many countries and the government’s inability to impose decisions in the national interest, an early effort must be made to publicise and justify site selection procedures (this is precisely the process that has been implemented in France, Japan, Switzerland and Sweden and proposed in Germany, e.g., Bataille, 1993; EKRA, 2000; NUMO, 2002; Milnes, 2002; AkEnd, 2002). Implementation will depend upon fully justifying preferred options and, therefore, careful consideration must be given to the specification of socio-economic as well as technical criteria and the way in which these are weighted when determining priorities. The general availability of the digital data required for input to geographical information systems (GIS), at least in many countries that are considering radioactive waste disposal, means that strategic scanning of the whole country or large areas could be implemented in an economical and effective manner. Once preferred areas have been identified, further consideration will need to

be given to the weighting attached to key factors such as land ownership in the light of feedback from public consultation exercises.

4.1.6. Lessons to be learned (see Table 4.2)

General points and socio-economic and political matters:

1.It is important not to have any rigid criteria in the selection of sites for waste disposal, except where this is absolutely necessary (such as the geological criteria currently being applied in Japan by NUMO (NUMO, 2002, 2004)), and to develop a site selection process that remains flexible and is based on guidelines. These guidelines need to encompass all the important factors, from geological through to socioeconomic, that require to be taken into account, but it is important that they are not prescriptive.

2.It is extremely easy to generate intense local public opposition to any proposal to dispose of radioactive waste or to the selection of an area for investigation. Openness by the waste disposal organisation is one of the most important issues in this regard.

3.The extent to which a local population is likely to accept the possibility of their area being used for radioactive waste disposal seems to be very dependent on their previous experience of the nuclear industry. This axiom appears to be applicable to many countries, including the UK, Belgium, France, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, and possibly also to the ROK, ROC and Japan. To succeed with a waste disposal programme, which will inevitably extend over several terms of government, it is necessary to accept the constraints imposed by political pragmatism and to choose sites for investigation which have some form of public, and therefore political, support. There is often a popular misunderstanding that the best disposal site ought to be selected, and is in fact being selected, rather than the radiologically adequate site that is actually being sought. The public may, therefore, give little credence to any arguments that suggest that a site close to an existing nuclear facility is the optimum choice (as proved to be the case for the UK’s proposed site at Sellafield).

4.It is important for the politicians, the public and the licensing authorities to be convinced that the solutions for radioactive waste disposal in their country are not inferior and not substantially different from the solutions being proposed in other countries. Waste disposal organisations also believe that this factor is important, as several of them have arranged to have external and international peer reviews of their programmes carried out, e.g., in Japan and Switzerland (NEA, 2001, 2004) or their programmes reviewed on a regular basis as part of the regulatory process, e.g., in Sweden (SKI, 2002) and France. Many such organisations are also often keen to become involved in international research, modelling and validation exercises, as this is seen as a way of providing more credence to their waste disposal programmes, even though such collaboration may not directly influence the choice of a waste disposal site.

5.The transport of radioactive waste to a repository can generate adverse reactions amongst the public (Germany being a good recent example) and there is an interesting divergence of views on the safest methods for transporting waste. In the UK, in contrast to the situation in Sweden, there has apparently been particular public concern regarding the transport of waste by sea, whereas the fact that many sources

of the waste in the UK are on or close to the coast is seen as an advantage in terms of waste transport by the nuclear industry and by their environmental and transport consultants. This may be an example of the analysis of the problem by experts perhaps not being in tune with the public, who, in certain areas of risk and environmental impact assessment, consider themselves the equal of any experts. It also contrasts nicely the strong role that cultural differences can bring with, here, two not dissimilar northern European countries seeing the same problem from opposite ends of the spectrum.

6.The significance of the NIMBY effect seems to vary considerably from country to country and even within different parts of the same country, and it does not seem possible to estimate its significance in advance, except in the most obvious cases. The point in the site selection process at which this effect becomes apparent is also sensitive to the political structure of the country, and particularly to the extent to which the public believe that they can have some influence over the decision-making process.

Geological factors:

1.There is a general consensus among the various countries considering deep disposal of radioactive waste on the geological factors that are most likely to influence the suitability of a site, including during the earlier stage of the site selection process when limited geological and hydrogeological information is often available. These factors are closely related to the required performance of the geological barrier in any performance assessment (see Chapters 3 and 6), and have been extensively discussed in publications such as IAEA (1994), NEA (1997), SR 97 (SKB, 1999), Andersson et al. (2000), Kristallin-l (Nagra, 1994) and Savage (1995).

2.In many countries there may be little to choose from between the different types of geological environments available, perhaps up to the stage of defining a short-list of potential sites for investigation, as there is often a lack of relevant geological and hydrogeological data; or perhaps because there is only one type of geological

environment available. This seems to be the situation in crystalline rocks – e.g., in Finland, it was not found possible to select between sites on the grounds of geology or, later and after initial site investigations, on the grounds of long-term safety

¨ ¨

(McEwen and Aikas, 2000). It is apparent, however, that there is one factor of the geological and hydrogeological environment that is of considerable importance when considering different environments or sites for disposal, and that is the level (or at least the perceived level) of geological complexity. This factor is known to have had a major influence in site selection programmes in Finland, Spain and Switzerland and has been extensively discussed in the UK, France and Canada. It has been considered under the subject of reducing the uncertainty in the far-field (e.g., Savage, 1995) and as enabling a robust approach to be taken to the development of a safety assessment (e.g., McCombie et al., 1991). A relatively simple and predictable geological, and by inference a hydrogeological, environment is a desirable prerequisite for the development of a convincing and robust safety case. Similarly, any factor of the geological environment that could be considered to increase the geological complexity of an area should generally be considered as detrimental when scoring sites, even if it is also associated with advantageous properties. A site with a relatively simple geological environment is also more likely to be easier to characterise. The ease of site