Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:22:31.695Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Overview of less advanced programmes and their requirements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

D. Diaconu ,
I. Ivanov ,
N. Železnik ,
M. Kralj  and
G. Zakrzewska
D. Diaconu*
Affiliation:
Institute for Nuclear Research, Romania
I. Ivanov
Affiliation:
Technical Universtity of Sofia, Bulgaria
N. Železnik
Affiliation:
NadRegional Environmental Centre, Slovenia
M. Kralj
Affiliation:
ARAO, Slovenia
G. Zakrzewska
Affiliation:
Institute for Nuclear Chemistry and Technology, Poland
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Geological disposal (GD) of radioactive waste is close to becoming a reality for Finland, Sweden and France. High-technology development and advanced knowledge has made it possible to defend the feasibility and the safety of such facilities, making the European Union a leader in the field. Other European countries are closely behind, developing high competence through advanced research programmes, research infrastructures and public engagement.

At the other extreme, there are countries whose GD programmes are at an early stage and no systematic research programmes exist. These include several new Member States but not the Czech Republic and Hungary, both of which have already initiated a siting process.

There are several common reasons for this delay in schedule: small and relatively younger nuclear energy programmes, return of the spent fuel (especially from research reactors) to the countries of origin, open fuel cycle concept (requiring at least 50 years of wet and dry storage). In this context, there has been little pressure on setting up an early GD programme. Currently their disposal concepts are only generic and in most of these countries need updating, taking into account the current socio-economic context.

However, some of these new Member States still aim to have a GD in operation within several decades, e.g. 2055 in Romania and 2067 in Slovenia. Strategic planning based on the experience of more advanced programmes shows the GD process should start immediately in order to be able to achieve these deadlines.

In this context, the implementation of the EC Directive 70/2011 gives the opportunity to progress the advancement of the GD process in these countries.

Keywords

Romaniageological disposalNew Member States
Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical Magazine , Volume 79 , Issue 6 , November 2015 , pp. 1599 - 1606
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2015. This is an open access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2015

References

ANDR (2014) http://www.agentianucleara.ro/en/article-legislatia-in-vigoare-1093.html Google Scholar
Andrei, C., Popescu, D. and Sorescu, A. (2013) Challenges Regarding the Safe Management of SNF andRWin Romania, Nuc Info Day 2013, 15–17 May 2013, Bucharest.Google Scholar
Ciocanescu, M. (2008) First shipment ofTRIGA 14MW research reactor highly enriched uranium spent fuel to the United States of America, IAEA-TECDOC-1593, July 2008, pp. 163-172.Google Scholar
Dragusin, M., Deju, R., Popa, V. and Iorga, I. (2011) Decommissioning of the nuclear research reactor VVR-S Magurele Bucharest Romania, http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/WTS-Networks/IDN/idnfiles/Presentations-in-pdf-Necsa/Country_presentations/Romania.pdf Google Scholar
ENEF (2013) Guidelines for the establishment and notification of National Programmes, European Nuclear Energy Forum. ENEF Working Group Risk, Working Group on National Programmes, NAPRO.Google Scholar
Gheorghe-Sorescu, A. (2013) Long term management of SNF and RW/LL in Romania, National Workshop on Geological disposal planning. IAEA TCP ROM9031 ‘Improving Radioactive Waste Management at the Nuclear Agency & Radioactive Waste (ANDR)'. Bucharest, 2-5 December 2013.Google Scholar
IAEA (2008) Return of Research Reactor Spent Fuel to the Country of Origin: Requirements for Technical and Administrative Preparations and National Experiences. Proceedings of a technical meeting held in Vienna, 28-31 August 2006, IAEA-TECDOC-1593, July 2008.Google Scholar
ICN (2014) http://www.nuclear.ro/en/departments/triga.php Google Scholar
IGD-TP (2009) Implementing Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste Technology Platform. Vision Report. http://www.igdtp.eu [accessed September 2014], also available as EUR 24160 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. ISBN 978-92-79-13622-1, ISSN 1018-5593, doi 10.2777/53840.Google Scholar
IJS (2014) http://www.rcp.ijs.si/ric/index-a.htm Google Scholar
Naydenov, A. (2006) Bulgarian national strategy for geological disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste. TCM on ‘Training in and Demonstration of Waste Disposal Technologies in Underground Research Facilities, An IAEA Network of Centres of Excellence’ Oskarshamn, Sweden, 26-28 April 2006.Google Scholar
NEWLANCER (2013) Report on the Networking Activities at Regional Level, D2.8, 2013 (http://www.newlancer.net/D28.pdf).Google Scholar
OJEU (2011) The Council Directive 2011/70/EURATOM, establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste ('Waste Directive’), Official Journal of the European Union, 2 August 2011.Google Scholar
Ordin (2004) http://www.agenretianucleara.ro/legislatie/Ordin%20nr.%20844%20din%202004.pdf Google Scholar
Poland (2014) National report of Republic of Poland on compliance with obligations of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, Polish 5th national report as referred to in Article 32 of the Joint Convention, July 2014.Google Scholar
Ravnik, M. (2008) Return of spent TRIGA fuel. IAEA-TECDOC-1593, July 2008, pp. 173-180.Google Scholar
Radu, M. and Nicolae, R. (2007) Current Status of the Romanian National deep geological repository program, SIEN'07, 14-19 October 2007, Bucharest, Romania.Google Scholar
Železnik, N. and Kegel, L. (2011) Spent Fuel Management in Slovenia: Current Status and Future Plans. NENE2011, Slovenia.Google Scholar