Radioactive Waste, Risk and Society Regulators Role

1
Radioactive Waste, Risk and SocietyRegulators
Role

• Kuopio University 29.11.2005
• Tero Varjoranta
• Director
• STUK

2
Content

• What are we talking about?
• Stakeholders Regulators role, rights
  limitations
• National Strategy
• Decision in Principle
• EIA
• Technical situation today
• STUK and the Public national and regional level

3
Spent nuclear fuel
4
Spent fuel arisings

• In interim storages 1420 tU
• Shipped to Mayak 330 tU
• Additional generation
• from the present NPPs 2250 tU
• Generation from the
• new NPP unit 2000 tU
• Total 6000 tU

5
Spent fuel interim storage(Olkiluoto, 1200 tU)
6
Spent fuelmanagement policy

• 1970s
• Spent fuel was regarded as an asset and
  reprocessing was the only option
• Contract on return of spent fuel from the Loviisa
  NPP to Soviet Union
• 1980s - mid 1990s
• Based on Government Decision of 1983
• Primary objective irrecoverable transfer abroad,
  central repositories preferred
• Secondary objective preparedness for final
  disposal in Finland
• Mid-1990s - present
• Based on amendment of Nuclear Energy Act
• Permanent disposal in Finland
• No export or import of spent fuel

7
STAKEHOLDERS ROLES AND ATTITUDES IN THE FINNISH
SF DISPOSAL PROCESS

• Central Government and politicians
• Traditionally strong power of the ruler and the
  bureaucracy
• Consensus-seeking policy
• De-coupling of the nuclear waste and nuclear
  energy issues
• Long-term commitment to spent fuel disposal
  program (Policy DiP of 1983, Nuclear Energy Act
  amendment of 1994, general safety regulation of
  1999)
• Municipality
• Self-government, e.g. "nuclear veto-right"
• Posiva's local groups
• Positive attitudes in the "nuclear"
  municipalities (good safety records of the NPPs,
  existence of the LILW repositories)

8
STAKEHOLDERS ROLES AND ATTITUDES IN THE FINNISH
SF DISPOSAL PROCESS

• Media
• Nuclear waste issue more as a technical than a
  political one
• Waste disposal raised discussion in local press
  but less nationwide
• Concerns about import of EU-waste raised
• Implementer
• Regulator
• Well defined regulatory framework
  (responsibilities, financing system, EIA and DiP
  processes, regulations)
• Professional reviews with support of
  international experts and domestic scientific
  community
• Independent communication efforts (visible,
  helpful, attainable, non-provocative)
• A "referee" role was striven for and maintained

9
MAIN BODIES IN NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT

Ministry of Trade and Industry
Review, inspection
10
REGULATORY ACTIVITIES

• NATIONAL STRATEGY
• REGULATORY INSTRUMENTS
• Mandatory regulations
• Triennial reviews of the RTD program
• Oversight of the URCF project
• SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES
• Independent research
• International co-operation
• Communication

11
NATIONAL STRATEGY

1983
1997
1999
2012
2020
12
SAFETY REGULATIONSFOR SPENT FUEL DISPOSAL
13
MAIN ISSUES OF DECISION IN PRINCIPLE (DiP)

• Safety
• STUKs preliminary safety appraisal
• Convincing safety case not yet required but
  evidence indicating lack of safety should be
  identified
• Safety case Posivas TILA-99
• Judgement basis general safety regulations
  issued by Government
• Support from international review team
• Overall good of society
• Judgements by the Government and
• the Parliament factors considered
• Safety
• Technical maturity
• Other options
• Economical aspects
• Local and regional positions
• International status

14
STUKs INTERNATIONALREVIEW TEAM FOR THE DiP

• GEOLOGY, BEDROCK MODELS, GEOHYDROLOGY
• Prof. Milnes, Sweden
• GROUNDWATER EVOLUTION, FLOW
• AND CHEMISTRY
• Prof. Frape, Canada
• NEAR-FIELD MIGRATION
• Prof. Glasser, UK
• FAR-FIELD TRANSPORT
• Dr. Read, UK
• SAFETY ASSESSMENT AND SUPPORTING RD REPORTS
• Dr. Hodgkinson, UK
• Prof. Chapman, UK
• Dr. Apted, USA
• Dr. Grundfeldt, Sweden
• Dr. Pers, Sweden

15
EIA PROCESS

EIA Act requirements
Feedback workshops
EIA program report
Hearings, opinions statements
MTIs judgement
Existing studies
New studies
EIA report
Hearings, opinions statements
MTIs judgement
16
MILESTONES OF THE DiP

• Posivas EIA-report
• and DiP-application 5/1999
• Ministrys EIA decision 11/1999
• STUKs preliminary
• safety appraisal 1/2000
• Eurajoki Municipal
• Councils decision 1/2000
• Appeals to administrative
• courts 2/2000
• Governments decision 12/2000
• Parliaments ratification 5/2001

17
Vision of spent fuelrepository at Olkiluoto
18
Underground rock characterisation facility
19
REVIEW OF POSIVAs RTD PROGRAMME 2004 - 2006

• Triennial reviews of the nuclear waste management
  programs is the principal tool for judging, how
  the NPP utilities meet the obligations for future
  waste management
• Posiva issued a Programme for Research,
  Development and Technical Design (RTD) for 2004 -
  2006 including
• Current status of RTD for SF disposal
• Future RTD for SF disposal
• RTD for other nuclear waste
• STUK reviewed the RTD 2004 - 2006 report and
  submitted its views to the Ministry and to
  Posiva/TVO/FPH
• Review was completed in fall 2004
• Support from external reviewers

20
STUKs EXTERNAL REVIEW GROUP FOR RTD 2004-2006

• EBS AND FACILITIES
• Dr Mick Apted, USA
• Prof Hannu Hänninen, Finland
• SITE CHARACTERISATION
• Prof Ove Stephansson, Sweden
• Dr Sven Tiren, Sweden
• Dr Juhani Suksi, Finland
• SAFETY CASE
• Prof David Read, UK
• Dr Peter Robisson, UK
• Prof Chin-Fu Tsang, USA

21
STUKs OVERSIGHT OF THE URCF

• Regulators tools include
• Review of technical plans and investigation
  plansresults
• Review of the update of site baseline baseline
  description underway
• On-site inspections
• Follow-up meetings
• Comprehensive review meetings
• External expert group
• Open issues list
• Independent seismic monitoring
• Independent safety evaluations, comparative
  geostructural modelling
• Information management arrangements
• Quality management
• Internal guideline for oversight of the URCF
• Regulatory guideline for nuclear facilties
• Reviews and audits of Posivas management system
  (ONK-instructions)

22
STUKs OVERSIGHT OF THE URCF

• Status
• The URCF is not yet a nuclear facility, thus full
  regulatory rights are not available
• However, the URCF is envisaged to constitute a
  part of the disposal facility
• STUKs oversight contributes to the later
  judgement of the construction licence application
• Goals
• Timely discovery of safety related issues and
  subsequent communication with the implementer
  key issues are notably
• minimization of disturbances induced on host rock
• lay-out of the URCF vs geostructures
• adequacy of the characterization program
• exclusion of unnotified rooms and activities
• adoption of high-quality working and
  investigation methods

23
STUKs ONKALOREVIEW GROUP

• Dr Sven Tiren, geology
• Prof. Jaakko Siivola, geology
• Prof. Ove Stephansson, geomechanics
• Prof. Auli Niemi, geohydrology
• Dr. Martin Mazurek, geochemistry

24
Regulator prospects for the future

• Current policy is firmly based on the
  once-through option
• Enlargement of the spent fuel interim storages in
  early 2010s
• Disposal is planned to start around 2020,
  permanent closure of the repository not before
  end of century
• International development in fuel cycle (e.g.
  PT) is followed and assessed regularly
• The timescale and the retrievable disposal
  concept leaves also other options open

25
STUK and Public

• Local public decision makers are given a strong
  legal position in decision making
• Knowledge on basic safety issues (was) low
  (largest portion of annual dose to Fin comes from
  radwaste, radiation from disposal depth is a
  major hazard for human above the ground, no
  walking, hunting, fishing, berry or mushroom
  picking is possible near disposal site, radwaste
  is much larger risk than operating nuclear power
  plants)
• Public and decision makers had it difficult to
  get reliable information about disposal
• the information available was contradictory
• more than half of the locals considered STUK as
  reliable source of information

26
Main expectations for STUK

• More information was expected about everyday,
  above the ground, 1100 years safety issues
  and problems
• safety of transport routes, frequency of
  transports, consequences of traffic, accidents,
  possible needs for evacuations, terrorism
• safety of encapsulation facility consequences of
  accidents, possible needs for evacuations,
  terrorism
• STUK to take more active and visible role
• referee state clearly which info is right and
  which is wrong
• provide the above info on safety matters, but
  note that people are tired to take and deepen
  themselves in complicated issues
• explain clearly what regulatory control is in
  practice what is there for me

27
Principles

• from the reactive principle providing correct
  information to the public to the pro-active
  principle providing promptly best information
  available to the public
• discuss only safety technical issues, no views on
  energy policy
• take distance from nuclear industry, no common
  events
• de-couple nuclear energy issues (such as
  construction of new nuclear power units in
  Finland) from nuclear issues
• main focus and resources to municipality level
  (less on national or international level)
• all activities based on needs of municipalities
• explain that STUK acts on municipalities side
  and promotes confidence in the process

28
STUKs strategy

• key audience local public and local decision
  makers
• public communication with basic objectives
• to gain local publics and local decision makers
  confidence in the process (not public acceptance
  to disposal as such)
• to support local decision makers by improving
  their factual knowledge base in safety issues
• satisfy stakeholders needs
• STUKs main stakeholders were/are local public
  and local decision makers of the municipalities
  where site investigation were carried out
• how to find out their needs?
• objective for STUK to understand which safety
  issues concern stakeholders and how they perceive
  risks behind their concerns
• clarify and understand what they expected from
  STUK
• study by Helsinki University

29
Summary Regulators Viewpoint

• Step by step
• Only safe is possible