OTHER DEVELOPMENTS RELEVANT TO MULTINATIONAL APPROACHES
II.1. EUROPEAN UNION WASTE DIRECTIVE
On the 19th of July 2011, the European Union adopted a Directive [11] establishing a community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. In the context of this publication, it is relevant to note the implications for European (and other) initiatives for shared regional repositories. The main message is that the option of European Union Member States sharing repositories is kept open by Clause 4 in Article 4 on General Principles which states that:
“Radioactive waste shall be disposed of in the Member State in which it was generated, unless at the time of shipment an agreement, taking into account the criteria established by the Commission in accordance with Article 16(2) of Directive 2006/117/Euratom, has entered into force between the Member State concerned and another Member State or a third country to use a disposal facility in one of them” [11].
This implies that regional cooperation could be an important aspect of the detailed plans that the European Commission expects Member States to produce within four years. The preamble to the Directive [11] contained key statements:
“Cooperation between Member States and at an international level could facilitate and accelerate decision-making through access to expertise and technology...Some Member States consider that the sharing of facilities for spent fuel and radioactive waste management, including disposal facilities, is a potentially beneficial, safe and cost-effective option when based on an agreement between the Member States concerned.”
Nevertheless, the binding text of the Directive [11] emphasizes that countries should not use the prospects of regional disposal as a justification for remaining inactive. It states that:
“Member States shall establish and maintain national policies on spent fuel and radioactive waste management.
Without prejudice to Article 2(3), each Member State shall have ultimate responsibility for management of the spent fuel and radioactive waste generated in it.”
II.2. SAPIERR II (STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF EUROPEAN REGIONAL REPOSITORIES)
In mid-2003, Arius (the Association for Regional and International Underground Storage) initiated the SAPIERR project for European regional repositories, which obtained European Commission approval. The work allowed potential options for regional collaboration and for regional repositories to be identified, though it did not extend to site identification. Decom, Slovakia, coordinated the project. Following this pilot study, a new European Commission funded SAPIERR project (SAPIERR II) [12] to assess the feasibility of European regional waste repositories commenced in September 2006. The tasks were:
— To prepare a management study on the legal and business options for establishing a multinational repository organization;
— To study the legal liability issues of international waste transfer within Europe;
— To study the potential economic implications of European regional storage facilities and repositories;
— To perform an outline examination of the safety and security impacts of implementing one or two regional stores or repositories relative to a large number of national facilities;
— To review public and political attitudes in Europe towards the concept of shared regional repositories;
— To development a strategy and a project plan for the work of the multinational organization.
Organizations from numerous European countries participated in the SAPIERR project and, at its conclusion, several of these countries joined ERDO-WG, which is described in Section II.3 below.
II.3. ERDO-WG (EUROPEAN REPOSITORY DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION WORKING GROUP) Following the initial studies, the European region was identified as the most promising starting place for concrete planning. A political framework already existed, the European Parliament had expressed positive views, and a binding Waste Directive of the European Commission explicitly included sharing facilities between Member States as an acceptable approach to fulfilling waste management responsibilities. Accordingly, the ERDO-WG was formed with the mission of preparing the groundwork for a truly multinational WMO [13]. The national waste management strategy favoured by ERDO-WG members is a dual track approach in which a national disposal concept is pursued in parallel with working with partner countries to assess the feasibility of implementing shared multinational facilities. The dual track approach has been explicitly proposed by the ERDO-WG. Ten European Union Member States (Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia) have been involved in ERDO-WG activities. All of these countries have either small nuclear programmes or long lived radioactive wastes from other nuclear technologies, and thus require access to a geological repository.
At the end of 2011, the ERDO-WG reacted to the publication of the European Commission Radioactive Waste Directive (which acknowledges the possibility of European Union Member States sharing disposal facilities) by submitting to European Union governments structured proposals for a multinational European WMO. The proposals were sent to countries that have shown direct interest in multinational facilities. They were also sent for information to all of the other European Union Member States. Currently, bilateral and multilateral discussions are in progress in Member States. In the meantime, the ERDO-WG members are already collaborating actively on consideration of common waste management issues. Discussion documents worked on to date have been devoted to the following topics:
— Siting strategies for repositories;
— Size and form of WMOs;
— Outreach activities;
— ERDO Operating Guidelines;
— ERDO Model Constitution.
The key issues that will determine the success or otherwise of the ERDO initiative are the political and public acceptance of transferring spent fuel to another country and the economic benefits that can be derived from multinational cooperation.
II.4. ARIUS (ASSOCIATION FOR REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE) [14]
Arius was set up in 2002 as a non-commercial body to promote the concept of regional and international facilities for the storage and disposal of all types of long lived nuclear waste. One of its key objectives is to explore ways of providing shared storage and disposal facilities for smaller users. Membership is open and comprises countries with small nuclear programmes as well as industrial organizations with relevant interests. Arius has been instrumental in the setting up of the SAPIERR projects and currently provides the secretariat for the ERDO-WG.
Arius has also taken steps to present the European project to other groups in Arab regions and in South-east Asia.
In 2012, workshops on Regional Collaboration on Radioactive Waste Management in MENA [Middle East and North Africa] Countries were organized by the IAEA and Arius, with significant input from the Arab Atomic Energy Agency, in Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates. These two workshops made it clear that the priorities in those Arab regions with active nuclear power development differ significantly from those in less wealthy Arab states that are concerned mainly with ensuring safe storage and disposal of spent radiation sources, naturally occurring
radioactive material and other materials. In both cases, however, there is a strong interest in partnering initiatives that pool resources and benefit from economies of scale. In the six countries comprising the Gulf Cooperation Council region, which includes two nations with expanding nuclear power programs (the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia), consideration is also being given to launching a joint project on the feasibility of shared storage and/or disposal facilities. Arius has also been involved in discussions among countries in South-east Asia that are interested in moving into nuclear power and, accordingly, need to establish credible waste management strategies.
II.5. GNPI (GLOBAL NUCLEAR POWER INFRASTRUCTURE)
In January 2006, the Russian Federation proposed the Global Nuclear Power Infrastructure initiative [15].
This was planned to include four kinds of cooperation: the creation of international uranium enrichment centres, international centres for reprocessing and storing spent nuclear fuel, international centres for training and certifying nuclear power plant staff, and an international research effort on proliferation-resistant nuclear energy technology.
The international nuclear fuel cycle centres (INFCC) would be under joint ownership and co-management.
They would be commercial joint ventures (that is, without State financing), with advisory boards consisting of government, industry and IAEA professionals. The IAEA would not have a vote on these boards, but would play an advisory role, while also certifying fuel provision commitments.
As a first step, the Russian Federation, jointly with Kazakhstan, established the International Uranium Enrichment Centre at the Angarsk Electrolysis Chemical Complex in 2007 by expanding the enrichment plant in the city of Angarsk (Irkutsk region). Recipient countries receive fuel cycle services, but access to sensitive technology remains in the hands of the supplier State. Ukraine is to use uranium enriched at the International Uranium Enrichment Centre in Siberia, in which Ukraine holds a 10% stake. Armenia has also agreed to take a similar stake in the enrichment facility.
II.6. IFNEC (INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY COOPERATION)
Proposals offering countries access to nuclear power and thus to the fuel cycle have ranged from requesting formal commitments from these countries to refrain from using sensitive enrichment and reprocessing technology, to a de facto approach in which states would not operate fuel cycle facilities but make no explicit commitments, to no restrictions at all. Countries that joined the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) led by the USA, which is now known as the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation (IFNEC) [17], signed a statement of principles that represented a shift in US policy by not requiring participants to forgo domestic fuel cycle programs.
The current IFNEC mission statement is:
“The International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation provides a forum for cooperation among participating states to explore mutually beneficial approaches to ensure the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes proceeds in a manner that is efficient and meets the highest standards of safety, security and non‐
proliferation. Participating states would not give up any rights and voluntarily engage to share the effort and gain the benefits of economical, peaceful nuclear energy” [17].
Whether developing states will find existing proposals attractive enough to forgo their inalienable right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes remains to be seen.
GNEP was transformed into IFNEC in 2010 and has continued as an international fuel cycle forum, but former plans for constructing nuclear fuel reprocessing and recycling facilities in the USA have been halted. Instead, the current policy is to support fundamental research on a variety of potential waste management technologies. Other ideas addressing the potential global expansion of nuclear fuel cycle facilities include placing all enrichment and reprocessing facilities under multinational control, developing new nuclear technologies that would not produce weapons usable fissile material, and developing a multinational waste management system. Various systems of international fuel supply guarantees, multilateral uranium enrichment centres and nuclear fuel reserves have also been proposed.
TABLE 6. MULTINATIONAL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MILESTONES (cont.) Category
Phase IPhase IIPhase IIIPhase IVPhase V ConceptualPreparation
Initiating MN-RDO
ImplementationImplementation National levelMultinational levelBefore site selectionAfter site selection Feasibility studies—Feasibility studies by ad hoc working group
—Define potential multinational implementation scenarios
—Define potential benefits and challenges
—Define incentives for pursuing multinational approach
—Define key issues to be resolved
—Outline possible implementation strategy
Check compatibility of all feasibility studies with national policies, plans and requirements Studies demonstrating capabilities to design repositories for dif
ferent geologies and to analyse safety
Policy (Political level)
A national policy is in place Multinational option is not excluded
Government decision to consider a multinational repository as one of the
options
Government to decide to pursue multinational
option
Finalize and publicize the policy of the MN-RDO Ensure that national policies remain in alignment with the
multinational approach in a dual track policy