TL: RADWASTE IN BELGIUM SO: Greenpeace International [GPI] DT: February, 1993 Belgium updated February 1993 ------- The first PWR in Western Europe was commissioned at Mol in 1963. There are now 7 PWR units in Belgium, 4 at Doel, on the Scheldt River, 10km north of Antwerp, and 3 in Tihange, on the Meuse River. In 1990 they produced approx. 61% of total power generated. **************************************************************** Policy (1) Until 1980, waste producers were responsible for their own wastes. Much of the work was carried out for them by the National Nuclear Research Centre (CEN/SCK) based at Mol. Following this, the government created the National Agency for Radioactive Waste Management (ONDRAF in French/NIRAS in Dutch). It is under direct control from the Minister of Economic Affairs. At the end of 1991, SCK was confined to nuclear issues, with research on non-nuclear issues to be conducted by VITO, the Flemish Institute for Technological Research (8). ONDRAF/NIRAS is responsible for developing the complete waste management strategy. Its activities are financed by the waste producers at cost. A fund was set up in 1989 to pay for long- term investigations. The agency is also responsible for the decommissioning of the former EUROCHEMIC reprocessing plant, and management of the resulting waste. ONDRAF/NIRAS delegates transport to subcontractors, whilst treatment, conditioning and storage are delegated to BELGOPROCESS, a wholly owned subsidiary (4). Operations associated with reprocessing of spent fuel assemblies are entrusted to SYNATOM, which is owned 50% by the utilities and50% by government (4). Belgium divides nuclear wastes into 3 categories; A - roughly equivalent to L/ILW B - (alpha-emitting) and C - (reprocessing wastes), both roughly equivalent to HLW. The annual arisings of all waste types, after conditioning, is estimated at 1,200 cu m. It is estimated that by 2050, there will be, for each category, the following amounts of waste to be disposed of: A - 150,000 cu m B - 25,000 cu m C - 5,000 cu m At present, the main producers, such as power plants, condition and store their own wastes. All other wastes are sent to the central treatment and conditioning facility run by ONDRAF/NIRAS at Mol-Dessel. Here, conditioned wastes are stored in either buildings or shielded bunkers, depending on their activity. There is also a ventilated store for HLW with a capacity of 250 cu m. A facility to store reprocessing wastes, including vitrified waste from La Hague in France, is planned for 1993. A new storage facility is to be constructed to contain reprocessing and other HLW due to be shipped back from La Hague in France from 1993 on (4). Existing facilities are scheduled for renewal, with new supercompactors planned for operation around 1992, with the existing incinerator for combustible waste due for replacement by 1995. High level waste from the EUROCHEMIC reprocessing plant is vitrified in a pilot plant called PAMELA, built by FRG at Dessel, and jointly managed between the German and Belgian governments and DWK (the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Wideraufarbeitung von Kernbrennstoffen') (4). It was reported in the daily newspaper, De Morgen, in March 1991 (2), that the authorities are to screen a village of 2,000 inhabitants because of fears they may have been contaminated by thousands of tonnes of radioactive waste. The report said the tests were ordered because Belgium's Nuclear Energy Study Centre had found levels of radiation in some buildings in the village 20 times higher than normal. A division of the giant Belgian holding company Societe Generale de Belgique SA produced radium at a plant in St-Jozef- Olenbetween 1920 and the end of the 1960s. A member of parliament for the Belgian Green party, Agalev, said 55,000 tonnes of medium grade radioactive waste were stored in the radium producing plant which has since been largely dismantled. Over 600 cu m of various wastes from German power plants are currently stored at the Mol-Dessel centre. Some of the waste, untreatable at Mol, was shipped there by the now infamous Transnuklear GmbH. The waste is both solid and liquid. Some high activity scrap was returned to Germany in 1990, but it is not clear when, if at all, the remainder will follow it (7). Some repatriation transports have begun, and waste has been returned to Switzerland, following reprocessing of spent fuel from Muhleberg (11). L/ILW (Category A) Prior to the LDC moratorium in 1983 Belgium used to dispose of conditioned LLW by sea-dumping. This was only finally abandoned as a potential route in 1988. NIRAS/ONDRAF then began a study of the Belgian mainland to try and identify potential sites for a shallow repository. It was decided in September 1989 that some 12% of the country might be suitable (1). Possible options considered included: 1. Shallow or near-surface disposal. A survey showed several areas to be suitable, and work to identify 4 to 5 possible locations is underway. 2. Disposal in existing coal mines, following their closure. 3. Deep underground disposal. It is planned to open a repository before the year 2000. **June 1990** (3) Of the several options currently under review, that involving the possible use of old underground excavations and mines has recently been eliminated, for both economic and safety reasons (instability etc.). French near-surface methodology has been examined, and further site-specific studies are planned. ONDRAF/NIRAS will submit a final report in early 1992, advising government on the options. **October 28th 1991** (5) A report, issued today by the Senate Commission on Information and Research on Nuclear Safety, has proposed use of the planned repository at Mol-Dessel (see below) for these wastes as well as HLW. The report also identifies the 5 sites which have been chosen for further study for siting of a potential near-surface repository. These are at Alveringem, Kruibeke, Cusinne, Chimay and Marche-en-Famenne. Selection of 1 or 2 final sites would then allow construction on an area of approx 30 hectares. It was planned to present a report on the feasibility of near- surface disposal of conditioned low-level and short-lived wastes by the end of 1992 (11). HLW (Categories B and C) An inventory of potentially suitable deep geological formations has shown that only clay and shale layers could be considered as potentially suitable in Belgium. The most potentially favourable formation chosen was the Boom Clay, of Tertiary age, located in northeast Belgium and extending under the Mol-Dessel site. The HADES (high activity disposal experimental site) project is currently being carried out at Mol, in the Boom Clay. There are currently no final proposals for HLW disposal, although it is likely that Mol will be recommended. This project involves the development of an underground laboratory some 220 metres below the surface, where extensive studies are being conducted into the effects of heat and radiation on the Boom Clay. The facility is also available to overseas clients for testing and research. ONDRAF/NIRAS submitted a 1200 page report (the SAFIR Report) to the Secretary of State for Energy in January 1988. It reviewed all studies and proposals conducted since 1974. He then set up an Assessment Committee, to advise on the acceptability of the Boom Clay for conditioned HLW. The conclusions of this committee were submitted in January 1990, and were that the Boom Clay was potentially suitable. However, further investigations are needed, including; - extensive site evaluation - study of the effect of heat on the Clay - study of the effect on the Clay of wastes other than HLW - development of a detailed repository concept. The study provided for the construction of a repository by the year 2020 (see below). **March 1991** (3) Results from the research programme at Mol are planned to enable a Preliminary Safety Assessment Report (PSAR) to be submitted to the national authorities in 1997. The latest (1992) timetable for site selection is as follows (10): until 2000: Continuation of investigations (at Mol), with preliminary safety report around 1997 2000-2015: Underground full-scale demonstration 2015-2025: Final concept and realisation studies2035-2050: Operation of repository and closure Continuing experiments at Mol include the PRACLAY experiment, which is an attempt to simulate the effect of heat from vitrified wastes on the Boom Clay. In order to implement this test, a second shaft will be constructed, primarily for safety reasons, but also to provide isolation from the rest of the facility. Authorisation has yet to be given, but is anticipated before the middle of 1993. The test will continue over several years (8). **May 1992** According to an article in a daily newspaper (6), a group of geologists from the Catholic University in Leuven have claimed that the clay at Mol is not suitable for disposal of radioactive waste. Quoting Professor Hooyberghs from the university, the article says that research has shown that groundwater conditions are a major cause for concern, as is the potential damage to the repository structure from neotectonic (small-scale earthquakes) activity. The earthquake which affected the region last month was associated with a fault line passing near to the Mol-Dessel site. **July 1992** Conversations with one of the geologists concerned suggest that the views expressed were those of a researcher, looking at policy issues, rather than the University. The main point at issue was that all studies are concentrated at Mol, whereas many feel that there should be work conducted on other potentially suitable clay layers in Belgium, particularly if Mol were to prove unsuitable for repository development. Conditions at Mol were not considered to be the best available, given the presence of water-bearing aquifers above and below the Boom Clay, and by the presence of irregular sand and silt layers within the clay. Other potential areas that should be examined were the Devonian shales of the Ardennes, and even the deep Basement rocks throughout Belgium as a whole (9). Sources: 1. NEA Publicity material 2. Reuters via Greenbase 8/3/91 3. NEA Nuclear Waste Bulletin (as dated). 4. The Management of Radioactive Waste (Uranium Institute 1991) 5. Greenpeace Belgium 6. Article in "Belang Van Limburg" newspaper, 9/5/92 7. Nucleonics Week 26/03/92 8. Conversation with Arnold Bonne, Programme Director, July 1992 9. Conversation with Prof. Vandenberghe, Univ. of Leuven, July 1992 10. Paper by Bonne et al to Waste Management '92 Conference in Tuscon, March 1992. 11. NEA Nuclear waste Bullettin, July 1992 -----------------