APPENDIX 2: Managing high level radioactive
waste in Finland
This note on decision-making on a high level radioactive
waste repository in Finland is based mainly on information collected
during a visit to the Olkiluoto nuclear power station in Finland
on 13 October 2001 by Lord Oxburgh, Chairman of the House of Lords
Select Committee on Science and Technology, and myself. I am grateful
to Timo Äikäs of Posiva Oy, Seppo Vuori of VTT Energy
and Kejo Norvanto of the Finnish Embassy in London for supplementary
information.
David Cope
Director, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology
1: Summary of Main Points Arising
1.1 Of the various countries that are developing
procedures for managing radioactive waste arising from civil nuclear
power (and other sources), Finland has progressed the furthest
in national decision-making for the construction of a permanent
underground repository for high-level[27]
waste. It has done so despite beginning the process in 1983 -
later than several other countries, including the United Kingdom
where the analogous date was 1975. Finland has also proceeded
further than most other countries in management of intermediate
level waste.
1.2 It has reached this position by adopting
a coherent process of site selection, government decision-making
and parliamentary debate and ratification, the last taking about
six months to complete. The UK Government recently announced that
it intends to adopt new planning procedures for 'large infrastructure
developments'[28]
that bear some similarity to the Finnish procedures, (which currently
apply only to nuclear facilities). The UK Government intends to
consult by the end of 2001 on the new parliamentary procedures
that will be part of the process.
1.3 Finland is also the European country closest
to making a decision to build a new nuclear reactor, using the
same national decision-making process. This would be built at
one of the country's two existing reactor sites, almost certainly
at the same site where it is proposed to build the high level
waste repository. The decisions regarding a waste repository and
a new nuclear power station have been kept separate, although
it can be argued that the decision on the repository facilitates
a positive decision on new nuclear build.
2: The Background to Nuclear Power in Finland
2.1 Finland currently has two nuclear
power plants, each site having two reactors. In 2000, nuclear
power produced 32.2% of Finland's electricity output - the great
majority of the balance coming from fossil fuel fired thermal
plants and hydro-electricity. The equivalent figure in the United
Kingdom is 21.9%.
2.2 One plant is located at Loviisa, on the southern, Gulf
of Finland, coast of Finland, between Helsinki and the Russian
border. It has two Russian VVER-440[29]
type reactors, with a combined power capacity of 1020MW and western-designed
safety enhancements. The site began full commercial operation
in 1981 and is currently licensed to operate up to 2007.
2.3 The second plant is on the small island of Olkiluoto on
the south-western coast of the Gulf of Bothnia, north of Turku.
Here the reactors are of Swedish design, with a combined capacity
of 1680MW. The site began full commercial operation in 1982 and
is currently licensed to operate up to 2018.
2.4 Renewal of the licences for both plants is expected to
be routine - planning for management of their waste assumes that
they will have an operating life of up to 60 years.
2.5 These two nuclear plant can be described as the most successful
in the world, in terms of their 'load factors'[30].
In 2000, the overall load factor was 91.8% (UK reactors - 79.0%).
Such high levels have been consistently achieved over several
years, without any compromise in the doses of radioactivity that
nuclear power plant staff receive, which lie significantly below
the European average.
3: Radioactive Waste in Finland
3.1 As with any nuclear power operations,
the Finnish plants produce various types of radioactive end-products
that require subsequent management, including low level, intermediate
level and high level wastes. In Finland, unlike the United Kingdom,
there is no reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel[31].
Instead this is treated as high level waste for eventual disposal.
Currently, as is widespread normal practice, it is stored in underwater
silos at the two plant sites. This allows for initial radioactive
decay, which makes subsequent handling, after a number of years,
less complex, whatever the eventual fate of the spent fuel. About
70 tonnes of spent fuel arises every year from the operation of
the two plants, which are each expected to operate for at least
40 years from commissioning (although presently licensed only
for shorter periods).
3.2 Low and intermediate level wastes are currently disposed
of in underground silos constructed at both nuclear plant sites,
excavated in solid bedrock at a depth of 50-100 metres. The Olkiluoto
facility began operating in 1992, that at Loviisa in 1998. These
repositories are also designed to accept the low and intermediate
level waste that will arise from the eventual decommissioning
of the plants. Together, the two nuclear power plants produce
about 300 cubic metres of low and intermediate waste each year.
Decommissioning will add, in total, about 40,000 cubic metres
of such waste. Intermediate and low level radioactive waste from
non-power sources (e.g. medical waste) is also placed in the Olkiluoto
repository, under contracts with the parties creating it.
3.3 Preparation for the final disposal of radioactive waste
in Finland started in the early 1980s (see below) but in 1995,
the two power companies operating the two plants created a joint
subsidiary company - Posiva Oy - to be responsible for all aspects
of radioactive waste management. Posiva Oy is therefore closely
analogous to Nirex in the United Kingdom. Under the Nuclear Energy
Act of 1987, the power companies are obliged to pay an amount
annually into the 'State Nuclear Waste Management Fund' to finance
ongoing and terminal waste management costs. By the beginning
of 2000 this totalled about £700 million. It is administered
by the Trade and Industry Ministry but is constituted to guarantee
separation from routine government finances.
4: The Finnish Decision-making Process
4.1 The Finnish decision-making process
for the construction of any major nuclear facility[32]
was laid down by the Nuclear Energy Act of 1987. This process,
applied to plans for a high level waste repository, reached its
culmination on May 18, 2001 when the Finnish Parliament approved
a plan to build an underground test facility at Olkiluoto. Provided
that research at this test facility verifies the suitability of
the site, progress would then be made towards construction of
the permanent repository.
4.2 The 200-member unicameral Finnish Parliament ratified
the decision by a vote of 159 to 3 (the balance of members being
absent). Among those voting in favour were all 'Green' MPs. The
Greens are junior members of the coalition government.
4.3 The process leading to this decision had begun in 1983,
with the commissioning of research into rock characteristics in
various parts of Finland. This can be taken as the analogous stage
to the 1975 request by the UK Atomic Energy Authority to the then
Institute of Geological Sciences (now the British Geological Survey)
to conduct UK-wide investigations of the suitability of geological
formations for an underground high-level waste repository.
4.4 In Finland, by the end of the 1980s, greater urgency arose
to advance the site selection process when it became clear that
earlier expectations that the spent fuel from the Loviisa plant
would be sent to Russia for management, were unlikely to be fulfilled.
In 1994 an amendment to the Nuclear Energy Act required all radioactive
waste produced in Finland to be disposed of within the country.
Shipments to Russia ended in 1996.
4.5 On the basis of the mid-1980s work, 'preliminary site
characterisation' was conducted at five sites in Finland during
1986-1992 (including the Olkiluoto nuclear power plant site, with
the Loviisa site being added in 1997). One site was dropped and
between 1993 and 1999, 'detailed site characterisation' led to
the selection of the Olkiluoto site by Posiva Oy. As with the
UK Nirex decision to seek a 'Rock Characterisation Facility' near
Sellafield, a major factor in selecting Olkiluoto was that a large
proportion (in the Finnish case, over 50%) of all the waste requiring
disposal is created at the adjacent nuclear site. A proximate
disposal site would therefore minimise the need for transport
of spent fuel. Spent fuel from the Loviisa site probably would
be taken to Olkiluoto by sea. This consideration led to the Olkiluoto
site being included in the final shortlist of sites despite the
fact that it did not nominate itself according to the strict geological
criteria that resulted in the emergence of the other shortlisted
sites. It was considered acceptable to include the Olkiluoto site
because, along with the other three sites, it was concluded that
there were no long term safety concerns that distinguished any
of them.
4.6 In June 1999, Posiva Oy submitted an application for a
policy decision to the Finnish 'Council of State'[33].
The application was to build an underground rock characterisation
facility, not an actual repository, at Olkiluoto. The Ministry
of Trade and Industry - the 'competent' ministry - has the responsibility
for processing the application. This involves several elements,
as laid down by the Finnish Nuclear Energy Act, including:
- a national written public and institutional consultation
invitation;
- formal consultations with the host local authority
and local authorities in the general area;
- public hearings in the vicinity of the proposed
facility;
- a safety assessment of the radiological characteristics
of the proposal by the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority
(STUK); and
- an environmental impact assessment (EIA), as
required under EU law, but with national elaborations.
- These elements, particularly the local authority
and radiological safety procedures, proceed in parallel.
4.7 Of the elements, probably the
most important is the formal consultation with the host local
authority. Under the Nuclear Energy Act, this local authority
has an absolute right of veto over the proposal. This cannot be
overridden by governmental or parliamentary procedures, although
once the subsequent Government 'Decision-in-Principle' has been
ratified by the Parliament, the local municipality cannot rescind
its decision.
4.8 Only the local authority in which the planned facility
will actually be sited has this right of veto. Surrounding authorities,
although consulted, have no such power. It is apparent that these
surrounding authorities may bear some of the impacts of a development,
(increased level of risk, transport impacts, etc) but may receive
few of the benefits (such as the employment and local tax revenues
generated). In this case, the local municipality of the Olkiluoto
area voted 20-7 in January 2000 to approve the siting proposal.
Two local residents (from a population of about 5000) appealed
against the municipality's decision, alleging irregularity in
the voting process. Finland's Supreme Court finally rejected the
appeals in November 2000.
4.9 As well as the benefits from local spending and employment
during the construction and operation stages of the repository,
the local authority stood to benefit from a modest 'local compensation'
deal struck with Posiva Oy. A local historic manor house, owned
by the municipality and used as an old persons' home, would be
taken over by Posiva to become its national headquarters. Posiva
additionally agreed to finance the construction of a modern, purpose-built,
old persons' facility.
4.10 The EIA procedure is another key element. Although based
on the standard procedures, applied uniformly in all EU countries,
it has additional national elements that put a strong emphasis
on evaluating the local social and economic impacts of a proposed
development. EIA in Finland is applied only to individual development
proposals - there is no procedure for 'Programme EIA' - the generic
assessment of overall programmes. Finnish specialists believe
that, had such procedures been in place, the pace of decision-making
could have been even faster.
4.11 After these processes and consultation with other interested
ministries (such as the Environment Ministry), the Ministry of
Trade and Industry submitted a positive report to the Council
of State, which in December 2000 accepted this and sent its 'Decision-in-Principle'
to Parliament for ratification.
4.12 After holding a plenary debate on the proposal, the Finnish
Parliament referred the 'Decision' to two parliamentary committees:
Trade and Industry; and Environment. The committees' briefs reflected
their respective roles: the Trade and Industry committee examining
the national energy policy context and financial arrangements;
and the Environment committee the results of the project Environment
Impact Assessment. The two committees held separate hearings,
although in some cases there were common witnesses. Parliamentary
discussion focussed in particular on two uncertainties - the effects
of groundwater movement at the site and the (related) uncertainties
introduced by possible future climate change.
4.13 The parliamentary committees reported back within a period
of months. Parliamentary ratification of the 'Decision-in-Principle'
was given less than six months after the Finnish Government submitted
the matter to Parliament. This ratification could be overturned
only by a future Act of Parliament.
5: Future stages
5.1 Tests at the proposed disposal site will
go on until 2003-4, when it is envisaged that construction of
the rock characterisation facility will begin. Assuming that the
outcome of the research is favourable, Posiva Oy would apply for
a construction licence for the final disposal facility in 2010.
It would be between 400 and 700m below ground.
5.2 Construction is expected to be completed
in 2020, when an application would be made for an operating licence.
All the waste from the current Finnish power plants would have
been disposed to the site by the mid 2100s. The site is being
designed so that it does not require post-closure supervision,
although the specification allows for retrieval of waste disposed
there.
5.3 The original application for a Decision-in-Principle
for the repository included its ability to handle all the waste
arising from up to two completely new nuclear power stations,
each with a 60 year operating life. This was subsequently modified
to cover only the waste from existing stations. The Decision-in-Principle
process for any new nuclear station will have as a component an
examination of the proposed waste management. This will involve
disposal at the Olkiluoto repository site, the more so because
it is virtually definite that at least the first of any new Finnish
nuclear power stations would be built there. It is almost certain
that a decision about new nuclear build will have been taken before
work begins on the rock characterisation facility - and definite
that this will have occurred before construction of any actual
repository. The design of both stages will therefore be able to
accommodate the increased wastes arising from any additional nuclear
power stations in Finland.
6: Observations
6.1 A question sometimes asked is whether
any parallels can be drawn between Finland, a country with a population
of 5.2 million and a population density of 17 persons per km2
and the United Kingdom, with just under 60 million and a
population density of 245 per km2. While these factors
may have influenced the outcomes of the various consultation processes
adopted in the course of the Finnish decision-making process,
and probably served to reduce the environmental sensitivity of
the proposal, they are immaterial to the decision-making process
itself.
6.2 It is sometimes suggested that environmentalist
pressure groups in Finland are less effective than their counterparts
in the United Kingdom and that this plays a part in explaining
the speed and efficiency of the decision-making process. It is
difficult to produce definitive evidence to support or rebut this
observation. It can, however, be noted that three Green Party
Members of Parliament supported the decision to permit the repository
test facility.
6.3 Based on a 17 year timetable set out in 1983
and on research beginning the same year, the Finnish government
and Parliament reached a resolution of the complex decision-making
process for siting a radioactive waste repository with an overshoot
of only five months. (The events are summarised in the table on
the following page.) In the United Kingdom, analogous research
began in 1975 - but no analogous timetable was set out, nor structured
decision-making adopted.
October 2001
FINLAND'S HIGH LEVEL WASTE REPOSITORY: SITE SELECTION PROCESS
(paragraph 6.3 on previous page refers)
|
| 1983 | National site selection process for high-level waste repository begins with general geological characterisation
Government sets end of 2000 as deadline for completing the process of selecting a final disposal site
|
| 1985 | Based on above, 102 potentially suitable areas are identified.
|
| 1987 | Five sites, including the Olkiluoto nuclear power plant vicinity, are selected for the preliminary site investigations.
|
| 1992 | The three 'most appropriate' sites (including Olkiluoto) are chosen for detailed investigations.
|
| 1997 | Site investigations also begin at the Loviisa nuclear power plant site, included after option to return spent fuel to Russia was closed.
|
| 1997-1999 | Environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedures are conducted in the four municipalities.
|
| May 1999 | Posiva Oy submits a Decision-in-Principle (DiP) application to the Government, proposing Olkiluoto as the disposal site.
|
| January 2000 | The Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority submits a preliminary safety appraisal related to the DiP application.
Eurajoki, the local municipality of the Olkiluoto site gives its approval to the DiP-application, with a vote of 20-7. Two local residents appeal against this decision.
|
| November 2000 | The Supreme Administrative Court rejects the two appeals (supporting an earlier rejection by the regional Administrative Court).
|
| December 2000 | The Government makes a favourable Decision-in-Principle and refers this to Parliament for ratification.
|
| February 2001 | Parliament begins the process of scrutiny leading to a decision on ratification.
|
| May 2001 | Parliament ratifies the decision with 159 votes in favour and three against.
|
27
This is waste such as spent nuclear fuel that has heat-generating
and radioactivity characteristics so that it requires careful
handling and subsequent isolation from the biosphere for extended
time periods. Finland does not reprocess spent nuclear fuel, which
is therefore treated as a high-level waste. Back
28
Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, News
Release 335, 20 July 2001. Back
29
VVER reactors are totally different in design from the 'Chernobyl
type' RBMK reactors. Back
30
This is defined as the amount of power actually produced, as a
percentage of the power that could be produced, were the plant
operated continuously, other than during planned maintenance periods. Back
31
And, of course, there are no military wastes. Back
32
Specifically: the construction and operation of nuclear facilities;
mining and enrichment operations aimed at producing uranium or
thorium; and the possession, fabrication, production, transfer,
handling, use, storage, transport, export and import of nuclear
materials and radioactive wastes as well as the export and import
of ores and ore concentrates containing uranium or thorium (from
English translation of Act). Back
33
This is roughly equivalent to the UK Cabinet but comprises all
ministers and two non-government legal officers. Back
|
