Brussels, 07/12/2010 (Agence Europe) - The current strategies and progress in research on the management of nuclear waste were the focus of a European Parliament energy committee public hearing on 1 December. Discussion allowed stock to be taken of several chapters linked to this sensitive dossier, such as geological burying for the storage of radioactive waste, the procedure for re-using waste, transmutation of nuclear waste, and social aspects to be taken into account when selecting repository sites.
Geological disposal. Hans Riotte, who is in charge of the OCDE division on radioactive waste management, explained that waste of low and medium radioactivity are largely deposited in outside installations and in some subterranean installations but that, for the most radioactive waste, it is difficult to find alternative solutions to deep geological burying. This means that the geological provision for waste repository is the only clear, technically feasible and adaptable solution, he said. PanGeo geologist Detlef Appel placed emphasis on the advantages of geological disposal (distance between waste and the biosphere and capacity to contain waste) but also set out the potential inconveniences such as the need for long term maintenance and control, which is “impossible at present”. In answer to Rebecca Harms (Greens, Germany), who questioned the consensus of experts that burying was the best solution, Appel admitted there was still no clear consensus, referring to the Swiss model as the most promising, while Riotte referred to the Swedish, French and Finnish models, which should have systems operational within ten years.
Nuclear transmutation and re-use. The transmutation solution, which consists of burning waste by nuclear reaction, is still at an experimental stage, explained Professor Bruno Thomauske of Aachen University, adding that it presents a better alternative to simple geological disposal, but that considerable research work (taking 5 to 10 years) has still to be carried out. Denis Hugelmann, an Areva specialist, highlighted the potential of re-using spent fuel (96% of waste having recycling possibilities).
Swedish and Finnish examples. Eero Petraka, of the European nuclear energy forum, presented the example of the Finnish Onkalo equipment, where disposal technology may be examined in real conditions. He evaluated the cost of the equipment at €3.3 billion. Johan Swahn, of the Swedish NGO Office for Nuclear Waste Review, raised concerns about the long-term risk of nuclear proliferation because used fuel contains plutonium for 100 years.
Selection of disposal site. Most speakers agreed that selecting the site was one of the most controversial questions. “Everyone agrees there is a need for a final repository for waste but no-one wants it close to their home”, Appel said, underlining that safety should be the fundamental principle to convince public opinion. “It is important that stakeholders play a part”, Riotte went on, adding that that is what gives the whole process social legitimacy. (E.H./transl.jl)