TL: DISPOSAL OR RADIOACTIVE WASTE IN THE EC (July 1992) SO: Phil Richardson, Greenpeace International (GP) DT: July 13, 1992 Keywords: nuclear power radioactive waste disposal ec europe greenpeace reports gp / Group 5 "EC" updated July 92 ----------- European Community ------------------ **February 4th 1992** The Commission has approved controls on trade in radwaste including a ban on exports to third countries, unless they have specifically agreed to accept it and EC authorities are satisfied that facilities exist for its safe handling. No shipment of any type of radwaste will be allowed in the future unless the destination country has given formal consent (1). Sources 1. Reuters via Greenbase 04/02/92 ------------- Belgium updated 30th June 92 ------- 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 and 50% 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). **March 8th 1991** (2) It was reported in a Belgian newspaper today 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 daily De Morgen 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-Olen between 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). 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. 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 clents 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 studies 2035-2050: 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. ------------------ Denmark (1) There is no commercial nuclear programme in Denmark, although there is a research reactor site at Risoe, near Roskilde. This also serves as the central storage site for all radioactive waste generated in Denmark. Wet waste is solidified in bitumen and filled in 100 litre drums which is placed in 200 litre drums lined with concrete. Figures from January 1990 show that approx. 3500 drums were then in storage. About one third is wet waste in bitumen, one third is dry waste from Risoe and one third is from hospitals and industry etc. High level waste is also stored at Risoe, with 200 m3 wet waste and 400 m3 solid waste, together with 200 kg of spent fuel (2). The present intermediate storage is considered by Greenpeace to be insufficiently protected against the climate, such that a new site should be constructed and all waste transferred to it. Spent fuel arises in the DR3 research-reactor (10 MW). Using highly enriched uranium from the US, Risoe produces the fuel for DR3. The spent fuel is normally shipped back to the US. Risoe is now successively changing to low-enriched uranium which is preferable from a non-proliferation point of view. Denmark has the capability for a long period of intermediate storage, and there are no plans for final disposal in the coming decades. Sources: 1. Greenpeace Denmark 2. "Radioaktivt avfall och hur det tas om hand i Danmark, Finland, Norge and Sweden" by Rolf Sjoblom, SKN Sweden, 23/01/90 ----------- France updated July 1992 Policy (1) By the end of 1988 there were 49 PWR's in France, with 9 more units planned by 1995. 74% of France's electricity is nuclear. ************************************************************* Waste management is governed by the July 1975 Act on the protection of the environment and the recovery and disposal of waste. Under this legislation, any producer of waste must arrange for its disposal, at its own cost, by a body approved by the public authorities. For radioactive waste, the government set up, in 1979, within the Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) a specialised agency, ANDRA (National Agency for Radioactive Waste Management). This is responsible for designing, constructing and operating long-term disposal facilities as well as undertaking all necessary studies to this end. ANDRA is also responsible for promoting the application of technical specifications for waste treatment to be carried out by producers prior to storage. ANDRA is financed by waste producers, the main ones being Electricite de France, CEA and fuel-cycle firms such as COGEMA. Its activities are supervised by the safety authorities reporting to the Ministries of Industry, Health and Prevention of Technological and Major Natural Disasters, particularly the Central Service for the Safety of Nuclear Installations. CSNI receives technical backing from a special group of experts as well as from the Institute for Protection and Nuclear Safety. Ministers submit regular reports on radwaste management studies to the Higher Council for Nuclear Safety and Information, comprising leading scientists, members of industry, trade unions, spokesmen for environmental protection movements and journalists. **January 1992** A previously unpublished government report shows that nearly 200,000 barrels of radwaste have been stored down mine shafts in western France (8). The waste came from uranium processing plant in the 1970's. **March 1992** There has been discussion lately about the possibility of setting up a new exemption threshold for LLW (known as "seuil d'exemption), similar to the BRC category in the United States. The proposed limit would be 10,000 becquerels per kilo. There would be no limit on total waste quantity involved or controls on which radionuclides were being dumped, as long as they were sufficiently diluted. This exemption is proposed as part of the "Valdec France" project in Pouzin, in the Ardeche region. Wastes would be recycled and usable material sold for reuse in car bodies etc (9). **May 1992** In a recently published report by Jen-Yves Le Deault, chairman of the Parliamentary office for Evaluation of Science and Technology Options, suggests that low active radon bearing wastes, particularly those at the Rhone Poulenc plant in La Rochelle , should be dumped in a former uranium mine (10). Currently stored at Cadarache by CEA, it is proposed to move them to Cogema's worked-out mine at Ecarpiere, although this is blocked by legal action at present. The report also suggests that wastes at defence sites should also come under ANDRA control when no longer needed. Plans; Radwaste in France is divided into 2 categories, short-lived and long-lived, depending on half-lives. Level of radioactivity acts as a further subdivision. Uranium mill-wastes are treated separately. Short-lived -- beta and gamma emitters of half-life up to 30 years, generally from nuclear installations etc. These are disposed of in surface facilities. Long-lived -- contain lots of alpha emitters. Includes low and medium level emitters from reprocessing and high level vitrified fission products, and some spent fuel. To be disposed of in a deep repository, following on-site storage. In the May 1992 report referred to above (10), it was also proposed to create a 4th waste category, covering alpha-emitters with activities <100 Bq/gram. These would be disposed of in a "new type of storage (sic) facility" managed by ANDRA. Most typical of this category would be decommissioning wastes. Short-lived Almost 400,000 m3 of wastes have been disposed of at La Manche, next to the La Hague reprocessing plant since 1969, at a rate of about 30,000 m3 per year. The active site at Centre de la Manche is expected to be full by 92-93 (2) Construction of a second site is underway at Soulaines, near Aube, 120 miles (200Km) south-east of Paris. The design is such that the discharge of untreated site water is to be direct into local rivers (2). The nominal capacity of 35 million ft3 gives a life of 30 years. The site began operations in late 1991, whilst site selection began in 1984. Long-lived Deep disposal is the chosen option for long-lived wastes. If and when a repository comes into operation, at least 80,000 cu m of alpha waste and 3000 cu m of glass blocks will already be in storage (1). **Sept 1987** (3) 4 areas have been selected for examination: (a) clay at Aisne (two thick layers of Jurassic clays at depths varying between 400-800 m) (b) granite at Deux-Sevre (a large outcropping massif covers an area of 250 sq km) (c) schist at Maine et Loire (a Brioverian formation more than 600m thick, in the centre of a 10km wide anticline) (d) salt at Ain (Oligocene bedded salt between argillaceous horizons) 3 years of investigation are planned between 1987-90. One site will then be chosen, an underground laboratory developed and further work carried out between 1991-95. A safety report will then be submitted end-1995, with construction beginning 1997. **February 88** (3) The following activities at the 4 sites have so far been carried out. (a) 150 km vibroseis and 250 calibration holes (b) 1500 km airborne geophysics (c) 13 km seismic and 1500 km EM, magnetic and VLF (d) 30 km gravity In June 1987 the Goguel Report was submitted by a panel of geologists and nuclear safety experts, reporting on the technical criteria to be used in site selection. They did not compare the relative merits of the 4 rocktypes chosen, and said that it was not meaningful to define minimum values for each parameter of interest . They did say that hydrogeology and seismic stability were `essential' and that geomechanical properties, depth, hazard to resources, thermal properties were `important'. Human intrusion was not considered as important. The conclusion that `at depths >1000m pressures may be too great' was also made (3). **Dec 1988** (3) CEA have been involved in work at Mol involving sealing boreholes for vitrified waste, and at a granite site at Fanay-Augeres, near Limoges (used in PAGIS). 1988 was used for interpretation of the geophysics carried out at the 4 sites. b) At Deux Sevres more radiometrics were done to compare with LANDSAT and SPOT. A borehole was planned for early 1989. c) At Maine et Loire site selection proceeding for boreholes in 1989. d) At Ain the gravity data and seismic had been interpreted and borehole sites selected. Some in-situ work was also carried out at a salt mine at Amelie in Alsace, with 5 boreholes drilled to test the effects of heat on backfilled salt. **Sept 1989** a) Aisne- a 1000m open hole was drilled Dec 88- Jan 89, with a cored hole started in April 89 and finishing Oct 89. The uncored section was used to calibrate the seismic. According to Chenevier (2), 4 holes have been drilled, with the cored hole going down to 1123m. b) Deux Sevres- The geophysics is still being interpreted prior to beginning the deep drilling programme. (Due to begin in January 1990, but intense local opposition is causing delays. c) Maine et Loire- Geophysics interpreted, and drilling soon to begin. A continuously cored 1500m hole is planned in `a homogeneous block of schist'. Again, there has been opposition to the work. d) Ain- Reinterpretation of some oil exploration data has been done, and 2 lines purchased. Data from old oil boreholes in the area is being examined. No new boreholes are planned to date. **NB** The schedule has already begun to slip, with the choice of one site, planned in 1990/91, following drilling at all 4 sites, highly unlikely. **February 1990** (2) It is now planned to select 1 site by the end of 1991. An underground site validation laboratory is then to be built, to conduct in-situ tests and `demonstrate the technical and economic feasibility of the project, and establish the Preliminary Safety Report'. The decision on construction is likely just before 2000, with operation before 2010. The capacity is planned as 350,000 cu m of alpha wastes and 14,000 cu m of vitrified wastes, the latter to go into boreholes. **June 1990** (3) The intense opposition has led the Prime Minister to call a halt at all four sites from February 1990 for one year. A group set up a year ago to advise on the Prevention of Technological Risk, reported in April 1990 that deep disposal was necessary for certain wastes, but that no waste should be irretrievably buried that could be reprocessed. The group also recommended the establishment of several underground laboratories. A similar report is also being prepared by the Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Choices. **February 1991** (4) Following the anniversary of the suspension of work at the 4 sites (February 9th), the Government has reaffirmed its policy of deep disposal for long-lived and transuranic wastes. It also announced that it intends to introduce a bill governing the waste laboratory/repository siting and construction process for debate in April this year. This bill is said to draw on 2 recent reports, that from the Parliamentary Office published in December 1990 and that by the College for the Prevention of Technological Risk (edited by Bataille). Members of the College have however claimed that the government is short-circuiting their report, which is due to be published on February 21st. The College report is expected to call for a rethink of the repository programme in the light of retrievability and other criteria, together with a review of the options available to France for the back end of the fuel cycle. It also recommends research into clean technologies for waste management and the potential of direct disposal of spent fuel for waste minimisation. The problem of nuclear waste must be addressed from the mine forwards, the College says, including uranium mill tailings. The report also recommends drafting of a basic energy act to `define the place of nuclear power during a given period and to guarantee the return of foreign wastes to their country of origin. **April 1991** The French Government is to submit the new waste management bill to Parliament, for debate in May. The bill will provide for the selection of two sites for underground laboratories, not necessarily at any of the 4 sites currently under investigation. No wastes will be allowed to go into the laboratories. The bill will also sever the administrative links between ANDRA and the CEA, allowing the latter to become a commercial organisation, although still State-owned. Also included in the bill will be a committment to "advanced reprocessing", the name given to actinide separation and transmutation. All foreign reprocessing wastes will also have to be returned to the country of origin by COGEMA (5). **July 1991** The new waste bill was passed by the National Assembly on June 27th. It is unlikely though that full process and passage into law can take place before the end of October 1991, due to several factors, not least the May change of government. It has become clear that even the initial designation of a site as a candidate for a laboratory will require a public inquiry and authorisation from the Council of State. It will then be impossible for that site to be proposed as a potential repository site for at least 15 years, again without an inquiry and enabling legislation (6). **November 1991** (7) The waste bill is due to be dabated for the second and final time in the National Assembly on 25th November. It is likely that final legislation will include an amendment prohibiting storage in France of imported wastes, even if they are the result of reprocessing in France. This was added to the bill by the Senate when it was passed on November 7th. Any further changes by the National assembly will cause it to be returned to the Senate again. **June 1992** According to comments by a British consultant, the Bill was passed on 30th December 1991. It is likely that the new post of Mediator, to facilitate site selection and development for a laboratory, may not be filled until after elections in 1992. The post is likely to be offered to the editor of an earlier report on waste management, Bataille. **July 1992** According to conversations with researchers in Belgium, it seems almost certain that an underground laboratory will be built in the Jurassic clays at Aisne (11). Sources: 1. NEA Publicity material 2. Chenevier, at IBC conference, London, February 1990 3. NEA Nuclear Waste Bulletin (as dated) 4. Nucleonics Week, 21/02/91 5. NuclearFuel, 29/04/91 6. NuclearFuel, 08/07/91 7. NuclearFuel, 25/11/91 8. Reuters 10/01/92 9. WISE 368, 06/03/92 10. NuclearFuel 11/05/92 11. Visit to HADES research centre at Mol-Dessel, July 7/8th 1992 -------------------- Germany updated 10th July 92 The comments given here refer to activities in terms of the Federal Republic (FRG) and the German Democratic Republic (DDR), until 1991, when they become common to the unified Germany as a whole. By the end of 1989, there were 18 reactor sites in the FRG, producing 39% of the total electricity supply. By December 1990, the 4 operating reactors at the Greifswald site in the GDR had all been shut down, following a poor safety report by FRG safety officials. These were Russian-built VVER 440 reactors, and even the `improved' VVER 1000s type reactors now under construction at Stendal are considered unsafe by Western standards. The future of nuclear power in the east is uncertain to say the least. Only approx. 10% of electricity was generated from nuclear. There are currently no operating reactors in the former GDR. **April 1991** Plans are being submitted for approval to allow the building of 2 new PWR's in the former GDR, at Griefswald and at Stendal. It is planned to seek a one-step licencing procedure by 1993 (8). ***************************************************************** Policy (1) The handling of nuclear waste (in the FRG) is regulated by the Atomic Energy Act. From 1989, the responsibility for safe disposal of all categories of waste is the responsibility of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS). To carry out this function, the German Company for the Construction and Operation of Waste Repositories (DBE) was previously set up in 1979. **February 1991** (2) A seven-point revision of the Atomic Act is reportedly under consideration by the Bonn government, including removing nuclear energy promotion from the legal obligations together with the bias towards reprocessing as opposed to direct disposal of spent fuel. It is also likely to propose the privatisation of the construction and operation of nuclear waste storage facilities. This is in anticipation of a constitutional fight over the Konrad low-level waste facility (below). The BfS is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Minister of the Environment, Nature Protection and Reactor Safety (BMU). Research is conducted in conjunction with the Federal Ministry for Research and Technology (BMFT). Under the Atomic Energy Act, licencing is carried out by the State government. Waste in Germany is divided into Low, Medium and High Level for handling purposes, but the only distinction drawn for disposal purposes is whether the waste is heat-generating (HLW) or not. Until 1978, almost all Low and Medium (L/ILW) in the FRG was disposed of in the Asse salt mine, near Remlingen. By 1987, there was 8,500 cu m of unconditioned waste, 38,000 cu m of conditioned waste and 415 cu m of HLW in storage, which takes place at some 50 sites in the FRG. The capacity of these sites is approx. 120,000 cu m, sufficient until about 1994. By the year 2000, there will be an estimated 196,000 cu m of conditioned I/LLW, 5,800 cu m of conditioned HLW and 4,200 cu m of cemented tritiated water. In the GDR, prior to 1980, 150 and 200 cu m of unconditioned radioactive waste was brought to a repository at Lohmen near Dresden. This is excavated in sandstone but nothing is known about the real conditions and about possible environmental effects (3). Following the development of the repository at Morsleben in 1969 (see below), no further dumping took place at Lohmen. According to GDR officials, some 5400 cu m of LLW is stored at Morsleben, together with 600 cu m of MLW (4). **May 1991** (9) Ministers from the federal states of Lower Saxony, Hessen and Schleswig-Holstein have announced a new strategy for phasing out nuclear power in Germany. They say that new stations may only be built if the waste disposal problem is completely solved. By exporting waste for reprocessing, they say, the solution can never be satisfactory. If waste disposed of overseas is generated from reprocessing German wastes, as at Sellafield, for example, and the regulations in force there do not match up with German ones (which they don't), then no licences should be granted for new reactors and those for existing ones revised. L/ILW FRG - following the cessation of disposal activities at Asse, research continued there into the technical aspects of developing a properly engineered repository in salt for HLW. Investigations in 1975 suggested that an old iron ore mine at Konrad, near Braunschweig should be investigated for possible use for disposal of L/ILW. If approved, up to 650,000 cu m of conditioned waste could be disposed of. **June 1990** (5) Due the `Wackersdorf Decision' the site licencing procedure for Konrad has been delayed until at least 1991. **April 1991 (7) The German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe has ordered the state government of Lower Saxony to proceed with the Konrad licencing process. The state had delayed this claiming that the federal government must conduct an environmental impact analysis first. The Court ruled that under the Atomic Act, the state government must carry out instructions from BMU. State government officials have promised a public hearing on the facility within the next 6 months, as required by the Atomic Act. **July 1991** (11) Plans for the the repository at Konrad have been made available for public examination and comment, as provided for by the Atomic Act. Greenpeace presented a petition containing 250,000 signatures to the Environment Minister in Lower Saxony, together with a critique of the proposals for repatriation of wastes generated from overseas reprocessing. **December 1991** (11) Due to the large number of responses from the public, plans for the hearing have been delayed. The Public Hearing is now expected in the second half of 1992. **February 1992** The delay in calling the hearing is causing concern in the Federal BMU, and a meeting was held on February 25th to try and spped up the process. The State of Lower Saxony still maintains that any submissions concerning the facility must be thoroughly assessed, and that this was not likely before at least September 1992. BMU have threatened to impose a date by regulatory order (14). GDR - following reunification, the L/ILW repository at Morsleben becomes a German facility. There is not much information available at present, other than that it has been in operation for 20 years, and is constructed in an old salt mine near the Austrian border. The site is also sometimes referred to as `Bartensleben'. **January 1991** (4) The Morsleben repository is situated near to the town of Helmstedt, and was commissioned in 1969, following its closure as a salt mine. BMU commissioned a report on the licensability of the repository last year, which is expected to be published shortly. The report is said to require termination of certain waste practices formerly permitted by the GDR authorities. These include disposing of liquid LLW by mixing it with fly ash and then spraying the mixture into underground caverns. According to DBE who have operated the repository since last November, some 8,200 cu m of liquid were mixed with 25,000 cu m of fly ash from coal-burning plants. 5,400 cu m of LLW is also stored at Morsleben in metal drums and containers made of plastic and paper. Officials claim that the repository has room to store a further 75000 cu m of waste, and that it had been intended to operate it until at least 2030, with decommissioning wastes also planned to be dumped there. Measures are also to be taken to prevent about 1200 cu m of brine, in an adjacent shaft formerly used for dumping toxic wastes, from seeping into the repository. The brine gained access due to poor construction of the toxics facility. A report has been prepared on Morsleben by the Oeko Institut, based in Darmstadt, which concludes that compared to Western safety standards it is a `sheer catastrophe.' **25th February 1991** (3) A court in Magdeburg today issued an interim order stopping waste dumping at Morsleben. Under the Atomic Energy Act it is not possible for a private company to operate a waste repository. At unification, the privately owned repository was transferred into Government ownership, apparently incorrectly. The legal wrangling is continuing. **March 1991** Due to the closure of Morsleben, pending the outcome of the court case referred to above, the 5 new states on the territory of the former GDR have now to find a storage site for the waste from Greifswald. Unlike the old FRG states, they have no licenced interim storage and collection centres available. There is also some confusion as to whether Morsleben contains HLW, dumped in the past, when waste classificatory schemes in the FRG and GDR were not compatible. Further information regarding the nearby toxics dump (the so- called `Marie excavation', suggests that up to 6000 tonnes of cyanide contaminated wastes have been disposed of there (6). **November 1991** (10) Plans have been announced to store waste at the now closed Greifswald site, formerly in the GDR. PreussenElektra plan to build 2 concrete stores, one for L/ILW and one for spent fuel. The plans envisage capacity of 200,000 cubic metres of L/ILW, more than the existing and planned stores in the whole of the former FRG. The local government of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern has since decided that only wastes generated at Greifswald can actually be stored there (11). **December 1991** (12) A court in Magdeburg has declared the Morsleben operating licence null and void. Any further use of the facility will depend on compliance with full safety procedures as per the old FRG authorities. **10th July 1992** Environment Minister Klaus Toepfer has announced that the Morsleben repository is to be reopened, following what he referred to as 'modernisation'(15). It will be used for low and intermediate level wastes, originating mainly from eastern Germany, and will remain open until at least 2000. HLW Gorleben **July 1987** (5) The proposed repository site is the old Gorleben salt mine, where an underground exploration programme was begun in 1984. Two shafts are under construction, but work was stopped in May 1987 due to a fatal accident in Shaft 1 at 234m, caused by unexpected lateral ground pressure. Work only began again in 1989. The shafts are expected to enter the salt dome at 260m, and are planned to go to 940m and 840m. There will be an underground site investigation carried out to 1992 to assess suitability. Geological and geotechnical investigations will be carried out at the 840m level, over an area of 18 sqkm. involving an extensive drilling programme. **February 1988** (5) Preparations for carrying out a performance assessment are underway, but all has been delayed due to the cessation of shaft sinking. **December 1988** (5) Research and development continuing, but the site licencing procedure is still someway in the future. **September 1989** (5) By June 1989, Shaft 1 was at 237m and Shaft 2 was at 46m. Final results of underground investigations are not expected until the end of the century. **June 1990** (5) By March 1990, Shaft 1 was at 262m, at the top of the salt dome. Shaft 2 was at 133m. **January 1992** (13) Shaft 1 is currently at 312m. Brine has begun to leak into the shaft, thought to be due in part to fractures generated by the particular method of shaft sinking in use. Ground freezing has been used, extending some 50m radially around the excavated area and some 10m below. The freezing process appears to have caused contraction of the salt with associated inflow of brine. Flows as high as 6 litres per minute have been recorded. Cement grouting has been necessary to seal off the fractures, slowing the advance rate in the shaft. Simultaneous grouting and freezing is planned to about 320m, below which fracturing is not expected to occur. The total depth of the shaft is planned as approx 800m. Shaft 2 is about to penetrate the salt dome proper, at approx 250m. Similar brine inflows are expected. The shafts are planned to be lined with asphalt when they reach 345m. Other sites **January 1991** There are fears being expressed in Germany that, following reunification, the L/ILW repository at Morsleben, near Helmstedt, may also be put forward as a candidate HLW repository. The disclosures that waste, which would now be classified as HLW under the German (not GDR) scheme, has been dumped at Morsleben, has renewed the controversy (6). **October 1991** (11) As mentioned above, plans have been put forward to construct a store for spent fuel at the closed Greifswald reactor site. The regional Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern has decided that only wastes from Greifswald itself should be stored there, comprising about 700 tonnes of spent fuel and decommissioning wastes. Sources: 1. NEA Publicity material 2. Nucleonics Week 24/01/91 3. Greenpeace Germany 4. Nucleonics Week 17/01/91 5. NEA Nuclear Waste Bulletin (as dated) 6. Nucleonics Week 07/03/91 7. Nucleonics Week 18/04/91 8. Nucleonics Week 25/04/91 9. WISE 353 24/05/91 10.WISE 361 08/11/91 11.Greenpeace Germany 12.Greenpeace Germany? 13. NuclearFuel 20/01/92 14. Nucleonics Week 27/02/92 15. Reuters, via Greenbase 10/07/92 ------------ Netherlands updated 5th May 92 Policy (1) Prior to the LDC moratorium in 1983, LLW and ILW were routinely dumped at sea. Currently, all low and intermediate level radioactive wastes are temporarily stored in sheds in the municipality of Zijpe in the north western province of Noord-Holland. In 1984 the Dutch Government and Parliament decided to store all existing wastes and future arisings in one central facility. The capacity of this facility would be large enough to allow interim storage for a period of 50 to 100 years. Apart from also providing storage space for vitrified HLW (or if necessary dry-storage of spent fuel) the radwaste center will also process LLW and ILW. (volume reduction, packaging and/or incineration of contaminated clothing and solid waste after a relevant decay period). COVRA (Central Organization for Radioactive Waste) is responsible in the Netherlands for the management of wastes. In 1988 a site near to the nuclear power plant at Borssele was selected, the so- called `SLOE Location'. This is in the south-western part of the Netherlands in the Flushing-East industrial area. Construction began in mid 1990. The site layout includes considerable areas for expansion of the facilities for low and medium level wastes beyond the year 2030 (2). All wastes stored at Zijpe and reprocessing wastes returning from France and the United Kingdom are to be transported to the new SLOE Location. In 1984 a long-term research programme into disposal options was agreed and a research commission was set up (OPLA - Commission for the Disposal on Land) which reported to the government in May 1989. The report concluded: 1- Construction and management of a storage facility in Dutch salt domes is technically feasible. 2- Safe storage is possible. 3- Continuation of research is justified. Some of the research conducted within the scope of the programme was part of the third programme of the European Community into the management and disposal of radioactive waste (Performance Assessment of Geological Isolation Systems -PAGIS- and Performance Assessment of Confinement of Medium-Level and Alpha Bearing Waste -PACOMA-). Therefore part of the Dutch research is funded by the EC. **March 1992** Reporting to the Dutch parliament in February, Koos Andriessen, Minister of Economic Affairs, said that there will be no conclusions drawn from the present studies, in terms of HLW at least, before the elections in 1993/4. It may be possible, he said, to make a smaller selection of sites from the current 25, all in salt deposits, but this could cause local problems (3). Sources: 1. Greenpeace Netherlands 2. Codee DDK and IJ Vrijen; International Waste Management Conference, Kyoto, Japan, 1989 3. Nucleonics Week 05/03/92 ------------ Spain updated July 92 Policy (1) There are 7 PWR's, 2 BWR's in Spain, providing 36% of Spain's electricity. ************************************************************** The National Waste Management Company (ENRESA) was established in 1984 to be responsible for radioactive waste management in Spain. It is a limited liability company, the shareholders of which are the Technological, Energy and Environmental Research Centre (CIEMAT) and the National Institute of Industry (INI). ENRESA is organised as a management company and its policy is to define and control activities considered as necessary in the field of waste management. These activities, in turn, will be conducted by other companies or organisations, especially engineering and service firms. Its activities are defined in the General Radioactive Waste Plan (PGRR) which must be submitted yearly to the Ministry of Industry and Energy (MIE) for its approval. The first Plan was approved in October 1987. ENRESA'S main activities are: 1. Handling and conditioning radioactive wastes 2. Identifying sites and designing, constructing and operating facilities for the interim and final storage of all types of radioactive wastes. 3. Managing activities related to the decommissioning of nuclear installations. 4. Dealing with collection, transport and transfer of radwaste. 5. Conditioning the tailings arising from uranium mining and milling. 6. Long term management of disposal facilities. 7. Informing the public. MIE is the competent body to issue legislation and regulations, as well as licences for disposal. The Nuclear Safety Council (CSN) advises MIE in matters of safety and protection. CIEMAT is the institution responsible for R&D in the nuclear field and gives technological support to ENRESA and MIE. Spain divides wastes into 2 categories: L/ILW with low specific activity, short lived beta-gamma and limited content of long-lived alpha emitters. HLW with high specific activity, > concentration of long-lived emitters and considerable heat generation. Amounts of waste; L/ILW Up to 100,000 cu m are expected from power generation up to 2020 + 130,000 cu m due to decommissioning and 46,000 cu m of others HLW 5.5 tonnes of spent fuel + 90 cu m of vitrified reprocessing waste plus an estimated 404 million tonnes uranium mill tailings by 2020 (2) With the May 1990 decision to permanently (and prematurely) close down Vandellos I, which suffered a notable accident in October 1989, the Spanish government will face the problem of decommissioning wastes 13 years before originally expected. L/ILW Temporary storage of power station wastes is currently carried out at the Sierra Albarrana site at El Cabril in Cordoba, with plans to make a repository there, able to take up to 60,000 cu m, likely production up to 2000. **June 1990** (3) In October 1989, ENRESA was granted a licence to construct a near-surface repository at El Cabril. The facility will be a variation of the French-type earth-mound concrete bunker concept. **May 1991** (4) ENRESA is mandated to produce an annual waste management plan, but has not produced one since 1989. In its 1990 2nd Semester Report to the Spanish Parliament, CSN has admitted that on-site storage space for low and intermediate level wastes at the nuclear sites at Vandellos-1, Zorita, Garona, Almaraz-1 and Asco are reaching the limits of their capacity. In addition, due to problems with compaction facilities, the currently available space at the El Cabril repository is also nearly full, with final licencing of the new facility not yet granted. CSN envisages severe storage problems arising from 1992 unless the situation is rectified. HLW ENRESA/CIEMAT are involved in studies to finally locate a suitable site for a deep repository, most likely in granite, somewhere in Spain. The plan is to build an underground laboratory to enable concept-and site-specific studies to ne conducted, prior to final repository development, although such a facility could well be developed on the same site. The original site selected was near the border with Portugal, at Aldeadavila de la Rivera, in Salamanca. However, due to intense local opposition, involving even the kidnapping of local politicians, the site was abandoned in 1987. **March 1991** (3) New cooperation arrangements have been developed with SKB from Sweden and DBE (Germany) in order to produce conceptual designs for repositories in granite and salt respectively. A number of potential areas are to be examined in different areas of Spain. **March 1992** According to the Third General Plan for Radwaste Management, 1991, ENRESA is distinguishing between 2 types of radwaste: the spent fuel fom the 9 LWR's currently operating in Spain, and the vitrified waste from the reprocessing of spent fuel from the now closed plant at Vandellos. However, the disposal options are likely to be the same. No decision has been taken to date about how to store the spent fuel prior to disposal (currently envisaged by 2020), other than the current practice of pool storage at the reactor sites. It is possible that both on-site dry storage and use of a central temporary storage facility (ATC) will be considered (5). **April/May 1992** It has emerged that ENRESA is involved in wide ranging studies of the granite batholith at El Berrocal, near Toledo, as part of international projects involving the EC and NEA. There has been increased public awareness and opposition due to an extensive lobbying and information campaign by Greenpeace Spain. The investigations are claimed as 'generic only' although potential sites for a repository are to be announced in the future (6). It appears that considerable work has been carried out in the closed El Berrocal uranium mine, involving deep drilling etc. It may prove that development of an underground laboratory has already taken place, albeit without public involvement or knowledge. **July 1992** Local politicians have written to the Spanish government demanding that an independent commission be established, to examine the state of the developments and research within the El Berrocal mine. Public opposition is now considerable (7). Sources: 1. NEA Publicity material 2. Greenpeace Spain 3. NEA Nuclear Waste Bulletin (as dated) 4. Power in Europe, 09/05/91 (and Greenpeace Spain) 5. Greenpeace Spain, March 1992 6. Greenpeace Spain, April/May 1992 7. Greenpeace Spain, July 1992 --------------- United Kingdom updated 10th July 92 **************************************************************** The first commercial reactor in the UK was commissioned in 1956. There are currently 11 Magnox and 7 Advanced Gas-cooled reactors in operation. Following the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in 1990, from which nuclear capacity was excluded, attempts are being made by the state-owned Nuclear Electric to extend the lives of the ageing Magnox reactors. Many are showing corrosion of the reactor vessels and failures of welds etc. Several will be shut down permanently soon, but some are likely to have their shutdown dates postponed. A PWR is under construction at Sizewell in Suffolk, and a planning inquiry for another at Hinkley Point in Somerset reported, in 1990, that approval should be granted. No decision on whether to proceed has yet been taken. There is to be a major review of nuclear prospects in the UK in 1994. ***************************************************************** Policy Sea dumping of L/ILW was practiced from 1949, at sites in the NE Atlantic and around the Southern Approaches. Mounting public opposition resulted in the National Union of Seamen refusing to handle nuclear waste, and the last dump took place in 1982, when nearly 3,000 tonnes were dumped 500 miles off the north-west coast of Spain. A `voluntary' moratorium was introduced by the London Dumping Convention in 1983, and is still in operation. A shallow disposal site for LLW has also been operated by British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) at Drigg, in Cumbria, adjacent to its Sellafield site (formerly Windscale), since the 1960's, constructed in glacial sands and gravels. Following criticism by the House of Commons Select Committee on Environment, in 1986, BNFL now use engineered concrete trenches, and have recently introduced supercompaction. The site is expected to be full sometime early in the next decade, depending on the source of the estimate. A Disposal Programme, aimed primarily at HLW, began in the late 1970's, but following abortive attempts to carry out site investigations for the development of a deep HLW repository in 1980, and the abandonment of the Programme in December 1981, the government set up the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive (NIREX) in 1982. It was mandated to implement government policy for the disposal of L/ILW only. NIREX was set up under the ownership of BNFL, the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB), the South of Scotland Electricity Board (SSEB) and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), and reformed as a Limited Company in 1985, with each parent organisation having shares and seats on the Board. A special share is also held by the Secretary of State for Energy. Through BNFL, the UK is a major reprocessor of spent fuel from around the world. A vitrification plant for high level liquid wastes was commissioned in February 1991. Despite considerable opposition and numerous claims of a lack of a proven market, BNFL has also developed the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP). Intermediate level reprocessing wastes are currently stored at BNFL's site at Sellafield in Cumbria. Plans It was originally proposed to implement shallow disposal for LLW and deep disposal in an anhydrite mine in Cleveland for ILW. However, due to intense local opposition, the Cleveland site was abandoned in 1985. Three further shallow sites were added to the original, Elstow, near Bedford, in February 1986. These were Fulbeck in Lincolnshire, Killingholme in South Humberside and Bradwell in Essex. There was again intense local opposition involving widespread civil disobediance. These sites were abandoned in May 1987, in what NIREX described as a `major change of approach.' Deep disposal is now the preferred option for L/ILW, and following a 2 year nationwide survey, two sites were chosen for further investigation, both at existing nuclear complexes. They were Sellafield in Cumbria and Dounreay in Caithness, Scotland. The government is advised on radioactive waste matters by the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC), set up in 1978. It consists of academics and nominees from the nuclear companies, together with trades union representatives. There are only ever up to 2 so-called `independent' members of the public. In November 1991 the Government announced that RWMAC was to be removed from the control of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution (HMIP) and be directly answerable to the Department of the Environment. A revised membership has been announced, including some people with environmental contacts. L/ILW NIREX originally planned to identify one of the two sites for detailed investigation by 1992, hold a Public Inquiry in 1994, and begin operations by 2005, whilst having also developed an underground laboratory and carried out detailed research. The likelihood of success on this timescale is currently open to much public debate, with a planning application now not expected until autumn 1993 (see June 1992 below). **November 1989** Following a succession of drilling related problems, the first exploratory borehole at Sellafield has been abandoned. The main reason for the failure is that the hole was not drilled vertically, in an attempt to avoid predicted faulting in the sub- surface. Pressure to complete the hole rapidly put undue pressure on both drilling equipment and operators. Two attempts to drill on the same site were in fact abandoned. **June 1990** (1) Following the failure of the first borehole at Sellafield, a further attempt is to be made to the east of the site, beginning August 1990. Return to the site of the original hole will be necessary in order to fully calibrate seismic surveys in the area. Permission was granted to drill at Dounreay in June 1990, and this too is expected to begin in August. This permission was granted by the Secretary of State for Scotland, despite refusal by the local Authorities concerned. **September 1990** (1) Drilling of hole #3 has started at Sellafield, to the east of the site. The borehole commenced on 25th August 1990. By 4th Sept. it had reached 176m, and had been stopped for installation of the main surface casing string. The plan involves 6 months drilling, followed by 3 months hydro and geophysical testing. Total Depth is planned at 1500m, with up to 1000m of Borrowdale Volcanic Series (BVS) expected. Drilling etc is being carried out by the KSW Deep Exploration Group,involving Kentings, Soil Mechanics and a West German firm, Walter Aktiengesellschaft. The contract supervision is being handled for BNFL by Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners (2) Drilling at Dounreay will also be carried out by KSW, with Gibb's again supervising, this time for AEA. Work here is not expected to begin until October. Several other contracts are also being let, covering the testing of the hole(s) and several surface and airborne geophysical surveys (3). **8th October 90** (1) The hole at Sellafield is currently at 460m. Top of Brockram was at 407m. Top of Basement is expected at 475m. Surface vibroseis surveys are planned end Oct/Nov to extend the present coverage to the current borehole site. Further geophysics is planned to take place at end of this year. The replacement for hole #1 (#3) is expected to begin in December 1990, being drilled concurrently with the first. It will be approx 100m away from the original hole, but this time will be vertical. **25th October 1990** (1) The Sellafield hole is currently at 509.6m There was no Carboniferous Limestone, with top of ?Borrowdale Volcanics at 467m. No weathering was evident at the junction. It is proposed to begin Borehole #4 in April 1991, with possibly 2 holes on the same site (for cross-hole geophysics and hydro testing). This site, plus 2 others, is actually part of Phase 2 of the site exploration work, and assumes selection of Sellafield as candidate site. Drilling of the first hole at Dounreay has begun. An application to drill up to 6000 shallow boreholes (approx 60- 100ft) in connection with a seismic survey, has been refused by the local planning authorities. **December 1990** The first borehole at Dounreay has penetrated the Basement rocks at approx. 400m depth, but AEA will not release information regarding the nature of the material encountered. **21st January 1991** According to a director of NIREX, Dr R Flowers, a full safety case will not be presented to a public inquiry into a deep repository, now proposed for 1993. It is intended only to cover purely planning issues, and seek approval for an access shaft. NIREX might be prepared to forego the estimated 400 million development costs if later work showed the site geology to be unsuitable. The long-term performance of a repository would be a `novel issue' to be dealt with by the HM Inspectorate of Pollution after any inquiry. This is in direct contradiction of the RWMAC suggestion of a two-stage inquiry, allowing safety to be tested in public. (4). **January 23rd 1991** (1) The borehole at Sellafield (#2) is down approx 1200m, and is planned to go to 1600m. Testing of the Borrowdale Volcanics is being carried out periodically. A replacement hole (#3) is now also being drilled at the site of the original, abortive, hole. This is down some 650m, still in St Bees Sandstone. Planning permission for a further 3 holes, to be drilled very near to the site of hole #2 (east of the main Sellafield site), has now been granted. Drilling is still intended to start in April. In addition to the drilling, 100km of land seismic surveying and 350km of marine seismic are still being conducted. The hole at Dounreay is reported as being in Moine Metasediments, some 4-500m down. **July 23rd 1991** NIREX have announced that Sellafield has been selected as the candidate site for a low and intermediate level waste repository, although refusing to totally rule out Dounreay until a final decision is taken to proceed. The NIREX timetable envisages a planning application being made to proceed at Sellafield in the Autumn of 1992. This would only be for surface installations and an access shaft. It is not intended to submit a full safety case to a Planning Inquiry, expected in 1993, not least because the bulk of the proposed 25- borehole site investigation programme will not have been drilled by then, let alone interpreted. **September 1991** Local authorities are pushing for a Planning Inquiry Commission, rather than an Inquiry, to enable all aspects of safety and concept feasibility to be examined before permission is granted. RWMAC chair, Professor John Knill, has stated that he would support at least a 2-stage Inquiry, enabling all results of the site investigation programme to be fully examined prior to the start of the construction phase. He has also expressed concern at the speed with which NIREX is proceeding (6). **December 1991** NIREX have produced an amended design concept for the repository. It incorporates two 8 kilometer-long spiral drifts, surfacing within the Sellafield site, down which waste and supplies would be taken, using a rack and pinion rail system. The proposals are claimed to be in response to public concern over the visual intrusion of winding towers. **December 1991** NIREX have produced an amended design concept for the repository. It incorporates two 8 kilometer-long spiral drifts, surfacing within the Sellafield site, down which waste and supplies would be taken, using a rack and pinion rail system. The proposals are claimed to be in response to public concern over the visual intrusion of winding towers. **January 1992** NIREX have announced their proposed timetable for drilling the 25 deep boreholes and up to 50 shallow holes (7). This assumes that planning approval is given for each borehole, without delay, when requested from the relevant planning authority. This was following the refusal of Cumbria County Council to approve drilling of borehole 10, situated between the Sellafield site itself and borehole 5, currently in progress. The programme, as suggested, means that by the time of the start of the Planning Inquiry, currently envisaged as Autumn 1993, only 11 boreholes would have been drilled, with only data from 4 included in the Safety Case. Planning permission has also been refused by the Lake District Planning Board for 2 boreholes (numbers 8 and 9) within the area of the National Park. **March 1992** Cumbria County Council have appointed Environmental Resources Ltd (ERL) as consultants, to advise them on issues associated with the NIREX proposals. Following promises by NIREX to make more data from drilling available to ERL, Cumbria County Council have now approved planning permission for 3 more boreholes (numbers 10, 11 and 12). Following the announcement of the upcoming general election, local Labour MP Jack Cunningham has said that he is not in favour of a dump under land from which wastes cannot be retrieved if necessary, but that he is in favour of a dump in principle (8). This is despite his earlier assertion that any repository should be under the seabed, off the coast of Sellafield. A report by Greenpeace, published in 1991, discussing Labour Party policy on the repository (9) and a recent review of the offshore option by a group of independant geologists (10), have cast doubt on Cunningham's preferences being possible at Sellafield. **19th April 1992** A report in today's Independent newspaper (11), has revealed some of the results of the first 4 boreholes at Sellafield, just published by NIREX (12). Preliminary hydrogeological data suggest that what groundwater flow there is at depth in the Borrowdale Volcanic Series (the target host rock), is faster than anticipated. In addition, the water appears to be under sufficient pressure that upward flow could occur, providing a migration link between the repository horizon and overlying rocks which are used as a local water supply. Professor John Knill, RWMAC chair, and Professor John Mather, (formerly chief hydrogeologist at BGS and now ERL lead consultant to Cumbria County Council), have both expressed the opinion that the NIREX safety case is compromised. NIREX have responded by saying that they do not expect to have a complete idea of site conditions without carrying out much of the underground tunnelling required for repository development. At present, there is no plan to then return to any public inquiry before the final operating licence is granted. **22nd April 1992** Cumbria County Council's consultants, ERL Ltd, have submitted a report which claims that there is actually no need for a repository to be built in the immediate future, given possible improvements in disposal practices at Drigg. This would enable more detailed site specific studies to be carried out and, if necessary, for other sites to be evaluated also (13). They also suggest that an underground laboratory should be developed, as in Sweden, to allow in-situ research to be conducted. **April 23rd 1992** A report by RWMAC, written as a response to the new NIREX design, is sharply critical of the new proposals, saying that to drive long, inclined tunnels, with such tight curves as suggested, "is at the limits of international tunnelling experience" (14). The report also questions the effects on repository integrity of using a soft friable grout as a backfilling medium, suggesting that the whole multi-barrier concept may be compromised. Echoing concerns raised earlier in a report published by Greenpeace (15), RWMAC say that driving the tunnels through water-bearing strata in the way proposed needs considerably more site investigation and interpretation than is currently envisaged by NIREX. **May 1992** An article in the Independent newspaper has quoted NIREX spokesman Harold Beale as saying "we have always started fom a point of zero containment, so anything else is good news" (16). This was in response to criticism, inter alia, of the plan to deliberately puncture waste containers before disposal in any repository, so as to allow gases generated by radiolysis and microbial action to escape. NIREX have previously claimed that waste containers would survive intact for centuries. **2nd June 1992** NIREX have announced that the decision to submit a planning application for a repository at Sellafield, originally scheduled for autumn 1992, has been postponed until at least autumn 1993 (17). It is claimed that the revised timing will not lead to increased costs. Whilst claiming that geological investigations carried out to date show Sellafield to be a potentially safe site, NIREX now say that they have "insufficient information, and a fuller understanding is needed..". They claim that refusal of planning approval for holes 8 and 9, within the Lake District National Park, is causing "a significant obstacle" to progress. **June 1992** The cost estimate for the repository is now running at approx 3.8 billion, including research, development and planning, according to latest reports (18). This compares with 2.5 billion as originally quoted by Nirex in 1991. No mention of the increase was made in the June Nirex statement. **July 1992** It has emerged that at a RWMAC meeting on July 2nd, Nirex admitted that mathematical errors had been made in their March report. Calculated potential return times of groundwater were incorrect by up to 2 orders of magnitude. A RWMAC report, critical of the Nirex site investigations to date, is to be published by end-September. It was this report which highlighted the error, and, having been circulated prior to the June postponement announcement, is thought likely to have been generally responsible for it. HLW As previously mentioned, up until 1981 a Disposal Programme was underway, involving boreholes and other research. This was abandoned following widespread public opposition, and only generic research is now carried out, with some collaboration in the work at Stripa in Sweden. No potential location for a repository has been announced, and no definite timetable exists to locate one. Storage of these wastes is currently the only management strategy. **August 30th 1991** (5) In its 1991 Annual Report, RWMAC has suggested that the possibility of using the infrastructure of the planned L/ILW repository at Sellafield, to access an adjacent HLW repository, should not be ruled out. Sources: 1. BNFL (internal contact) 2. New Civil Engineer 11/08/90 3. Ground Engineering July/August 1990 4. RWMAC 11th Annual Report November 1990 5. RWMAC 12th Annual Report August 1991 6. "A Deep Dilemma", Border Television, 18th October 1991. 7. Letter from NIREX to Cumbria County Council 21/01/92 8. Whitehaven News 19/03/92 9. "Labour Party Policy and the Sellafield Nuclear Waste Dump" Publ. by Greenpeace UK November 1991 10. "Sellafield and a Deep Under Seabed Nuclear Waste Repository" March 1992 11. The Independent on Sunday. 19/4/92 12. "The Geology and Hydrogeology of Sellafield. Publ. by UK NIREX, March 1992. 13. "Waste Arisings, Packaging and Transport Safety". Environmental Resources Ltd. Report (ITA/3) to Cumbria County Council, April 1992. 14. "Response to UK Nirex Ltd's revised design for the Sellafield Repository." Publ. by RWMAC, April 1992. 15. "Tunnel Vision or Blind Ambition?" PJ Richardson, Consulting Geologist. Publ. by Greenpeace UK, February 1992. 16. The Independent 21/5/92 17. NIREX Press Release, 2/6/92 18. Nuclear Engineering International June 1992 ----------