CELEX: 
Language: en
Date: 2014-10-09
Title: DRAFT COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT accompanying the REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION  TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL SIXTH SITUATION REPORT RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT IN THE EUROPEAN UNION   COM(2008)542 final

|
			
		
		
		52008SC2416R(01)
		
			DRAFT COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT accompanying the REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION  TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL SIXTH SITUATION REPORT RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT IN THE EUROPEAN UNION   COM(2008)542 final /* SEC/2008/2416 final/2 */
			
				
		
		
			
			   	EN
   || EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels 16.7.2010
SEC(2008) 2416 final/2
 
CORRIGENDUM
Cancels and replaces document SEC(2008) 2416 final of 8.9.2008
Concerns the EN version
DRAFT
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
accompanying the
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
SIXTH SITUATION REPORT
RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT
IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
COM(2008)542 final

Sixth Situation Report
Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Management in the European Union

1.                 
Introduction

The present report is the sixth in the
series of reports on radioactive waste management in the European Union (EU).
The original Situation Reports formed part of the 'Community plan of action in
the field of radioactive waste'[1],
which was further extended in 1992[2],
in particular the requirement to 'carry out continuous analysis of the
situation'. Although the Plan of Action as such is no longer in force, the need
for a Situation Report remains as relevant now as when it was first conceived.
It is important to consider the challenge posed by radioactive waste since its
management is, and will remain, a long-term issue. Even over the timescale for
which surveillance of short-lived wastes is required national borders might change.
This, together with potential cross-border impacts means that an international
context for radioactive waste management becomes increasingly relevant with the
passage of time.
There are a variety of international
contexts such as, IAEA, OECD-NEA and the ‘Joint Convention’ in which issues
concerning radioactive waste management are considered. Each of these fulfils
an important role in the safety of waste management and many of the EU Member
States actively participate in their activities. However it is unlikely that
neither the role played by any of these actors is widely known to the European
citizen, nor are the processes involved particularly accessible to individuals.
In some cases they are even carried out away from public scrutiny, with only the
end result or summary of proceedings being made available to a wider audience.
Against this background the role of the
European Union, and in particular the European Commission, in informing and
protecting the European citizen becomes particularly important, as citizens
look to the Commission to inform them about the situation and progress made
throughout the Union, and to take the lead in ensuring uniformly high
standards. The most recent Eurobarometer survey on radioactive waste[3] showed that EU citizens
wished to see Member States take action on radioactive waste without further
delay, in that they should fix deadlines for the setting up of management
approaches for their waste. Additionally practices should be harmonised in view
of potential effects of radioactive waste beyond national borders. Finally the
European Union should be able to monitor national practices and programmes. The
Eurobarometer also showed that if no action were taken, at least concerning
high-level waste (HLW), the danger existed that this could lead to the
impression that there are no solutions.
This report presents, in line with the
previous report[4],
in the form of tables, the status concerning waste inventories in the EU Member
States[5].
Due to the considerable time required to collect the data, the reference date
is end of 2004, except where the availability of national inventories dictated
otherwise. Additionally, where data are available the report considers the
likely evolution of waste quantities over the coming years (to 2020). 
As the report should be accessible, in
terms of readability, to as broad a range of stakeholders as possible, it is
restricted in this context to a presentation of the overall radioactive waste
quantities, considering generation, storage and disposal at the EU level. In
addition possible developments over the coming years are considered. It should
be pointed out that, far more detailed information at the national level can be
obtained from a variety of sources, such as national waste management organisations
(WMO), reports to the Joint Convention etc.

2.                 
Sources of Information

The information in the present report has
for the most been provided by the former Commission group of experts known as
the Advisory Committee on Programme Management (ACPM), which was set up as part
of the Community Plan of Action. Where information was not supplied or not
readily available, public sources have been used such as national Joint
Convention reports, IAEA, submitted in 2005[6]or
reports of national waste agencies or government departments. Every effort has
been made to ensure the validity of the data, though the degree of accuracy is
occasionally difficult to ascertain, especially regarding precise volumes of
lower level wastes for which there are a variety of possible conditioning and
treatment techniques and for which the degree of treatment and conditioning is
not always clear.
The figures in the following tables can be
taken as a reasonably reliable guide to the amounts of waste produced, stored
or already disposed of in the different countries. Also, it should be noted
that because of the special status accorded to radioactive waste, the
quantities are likely to be much more accurate than those reported for other
hazardous or toxic wastes.

3.                 
Categories of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel
Reported

The reporting categories correspond as
closely as possible to those in the Commission Recommendation on waste
classification[7].
Quantities refer only to solid, solidified or solidifiable waste and not to
effluents that are discharged to the environment as part of authorised
practices under the supervision of the regulatory body.
The categories of waste reported are
therefore:
·      LILW-SL means short-lived low and intermediate level radioactive
waste. This is waste that is contaminated mainly with radionuclides with
half-lives of less than 30 years and for which there is negligible heat
generation as a result of radioactive decay. Where disposal of this category of
waste takes place it is in engineered surface or near-surface repositories.
·      LILW-LL, or long-lived low and intermediate level radioactive waste,
also produces negligible thermal power but has a concentration of long
half-life radionuclides above the limit for classification as short-lived
waste. Disposal would normally take place in deep geological repositories. 
·      HLW means high-level waste, and refers to waste for which the
thermal power must be taken into consideration during storage and disposal.
Most HLW results from the reprocessing of spent fuel (SF) and is in the form of
vitrified residues. Spent fuel is also considered as HLW when it is to be
disposed of directly. 
Spent fuel (SF) is also considered in its
entirety, whether it might be intended for reprocessing or not, especially in
view of the fact for a number of states, there would appear to be no definitive
spent fuel management policy at the present time.
In addition to the categories of
radioactive waste in the Commission Recommendation, that of VLLW (very
low-level waste) is considered for the first time. This reflects the gradual
recognition over recent years, that there are some radioactive wastes that
require a lower degree of containment and isolation than that provided by
engineered surface and near-surface repositories. In fact some of these wastes
may not actually be radioactive under the relevant national legislation. It may
be either not cost-effective to demonstrate compliance with so-called clearance
levels, at which material can be released without further restriction, or there
may be issues of public concern about the release of such materials.
Not all Member States follow the Commission
recommendation on classification (which is itself based on an earlier scheme
from IAEA). However it is normally possible to make an approximation of the
relationship between the national classification scheme and that of the
Commission. 
Uranium mining residues are not included as
they are covered by a separate Commission study. However it is clear that these
wastes should also be included at some point in the overall quantities of
radioactive waste.

4.                 
Sources of radioactive waste

It is clear that the greatest source of
radioactive waste is from the production of electricity in nuclear power plants
and other associated activities. For this reason this report focuses mainly on
this aspect. However it should not be forgotten that radioactive waste is also
generated as a result of non-power uses of radioactive materials, such as the
manufacture of radioactive materials for use in medical and industrial
applications, or research facilities such as laboratories, research reactors
etc. In this context it is important to realise that activities take place in
all Member States that result in the generation of radioactive wastes, even
though the quantities involved are often very small, compared to countries with
nuclear activities.

5.                 
Highlights concerning member states data
5.1.           
Evolution of Nuclear Power in Member States
(Table A)

Nuclear power generation and its associated
processes e.g. fuel manufacture, reprocessing etc are the largest generators of
radioactive waste. There is a clear link between the nuclear power generation
and radioactive waste generation. Therefore it is important to see the possible
evolution of nuclear power in the short- to medium-term, as this will
ultimately affect the amount of waste generated, from operational and
ultimately, decommissioning activities. It will also affect the timeframe for
their generation, although with decommissioning this depends on decisions
concerning the timing and duration of decommissioning. 
A number of states currently have official
phase-out policies e.g. Belgium, Germany and Sweden. Others could be said to be
in a de facto phase-out situation i.e. no replacement capacity planned as
current NPPs are closed, such as Spain. In addition there are the NPPs, covered
by early closure agreements as part of the Treaties of Accession for Bulgaria,
Lithuania and Slovakia. Nevertheless with construction already taking place in
four states (Bulgaria, Finland, France, Romania), even under the most restricted
scenario NPP capacity will fall by just over 20% by 2020, compared to that at
the start of 2006. However it is also clear that as part of the larger energy
debate, construction of new capacity is being discussed in a number of states,
most notably the Baltic States, the Netherlands, Poland and the UK. It is
therefore feasible that in 2020, the overall capacity is little changed from
the current situation.
Any decision concerning the construction of
new NPPs will of course need to take into account the effect this will have on
the overall radioactive waste situation, since this will lead to the generation
of additional operational and (in the longer term) decommissioning wastes. Such
an assessment will require the consideration of both the technical and financial
resources required to deal with these wastes. There may also be political
considerations where ownership of the reactors (and therefore also the waste
produced) is proposed to be shared amongst several states. Such a situation
already concerns one member state, Slovenia, through its joint ownership of the
Krško NPP with Croatia. A similar
situation may exist in the future with Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.

5.2.           
Summary of Radioactive Waste Quantities – Actual
and foreseen (Tables B-E)

In this section the total wastes already
disposed of or in storage awaiting disposal are considered. These totals
outlined for the different categories of waste are for the 27 Member States
considered in the report and are reported in tables B, C and D. All quantities
are approximate and have been rounded. Since there is no surface disposal –
either practised or under consideration – in Germany and the Netherlands, these
countries do not distinguish between LILW-SL and LILW-LL wastes and both
categories are consequently reported together. For the purposes of comparison
with other Member States it is likely that up to 10% of these wastes could be
considered as LILW-LL.
(a)              
Radioactive waste disposed of by the end
of 2004:
The total quantity of waste that has been
disposed of to the end of 2004 equals 1,890,000 m3. This
consists almost entirely of LILW-SL, most of which has been disposed of in
United Kingdom and France. Additionally for the other 14 countries that operate
or have operated NPPs, only five (Czech Republic, Finland, Slovakia, Spain and
Sweden) currently have operational waste repositories for the wastes generated
from NPP operation, although it is expected that this will change in the coming
years. A number of countries (both with or without NPPs) have small disposal
sites for institutional waste, but these are very limited in the wastes they
can accept, and some of these sites have required considerable refurbishment in
recent years to ensure they meet acceptable standards of safety.
(b)             
Annual production of radioactive waste
and spent fuel (2004 figures):
VLLW            18 000 m3
– most of which arises and is disposed of in France. (It should be noted
however that UK does not record generation and disposal of this category of
waste in its national inventory) 
LILW-SL:      62 000 m3
– of which over 80% is routinely disposed of at sites in France and UK.
LILW-LL:      5 100 m3
– which is conditioned for long-term storage with only minor amounts disposed
of.
HLW:  280 m3 – all of
which goes into long-term storage; no repository exists yet.
SF:      3 600 te Heavy Metal (HM) –
of which at least 1 500 te (HM) can be currently considered as being placed in
long-term storage for possible direct disposal.
Therefore, in total, some 85 000 m3
of radioactive waste are produced in the EU each year, the vast majority of
which is VLLW and LILW-SL. However in order to compare this figure with that
for 2000 quoted in the 5th Situation Report, the quantity of VLLW
(18 000 m3) should be discounted as it was not included in
the overall figures and its rate of generation was probably already comparable
with the current rate. 
Hence the comparison should be between 39
000 m3 (2000) and 67 000 m3 (2004) these being the totals
of LILW-SL, LILW-LL and HLW. The 5th Situation Report had already
stated that it was unlikely that the reduction in waste generation seen in
relation to a figure of some 50 000 m3 (EU 15) predicted in the 4th
Situation Report and a reported annual production of roughly 80 000 m3
(EU 12) at the beginning of the 1990s[8]
would be continued. It therefore seems clear that the downward trend in overall
waste generation has ceased, although this observation can be accounted for
almost entirely by the increases in LILW in just two Member States, namely
France and the UK. Thus, while there are clear indications that further efforts
have been made to reduce the volume of operational waste, the observed trend is
possibly due to the treatment of some historic wastes taking place and,
possibly most significantly, decommissioning activities which start to play an
increasing role in the amount of waste generated. Although there has been a
reduction in the total installed nuclear capacity since 2000 this is unlikely
to have had a major effect on volumes of waste generation, since major
decommissioning works will not have commenced yet. The increase is more likely
to have arisen as a result of decommissioning activities at installations that
have been closed for a number of years already; NPPs, fuel cycle facilities and
research facilities. 
(c)              
Total of radioactive waste and spent fuel
in storage at the end of 2004:
VLLW:           170 000 m3
– of which almost 75% is disposed of in the VLLW facility at Morvilliers in
France (again the comment in the previous section concerning UK VLLW remains
relevant)
LILW-SL:      250 000 m3
– of which 120 000 m3 currently has no disposal route
LILW-LL:      220 000 m3 –
for all of which there is currently no disposal route
HLW:  7 000 m3 – the
majority being vitrified waste from the reprocessing of spent fuel, for which
there is currently no disposal route
SF:      38 000 te (HM) – of which
at least 24 000 te (HM) is or will be placed in long-term storage for eventual
direct disposal
At this stage, there is still no disposal
route available in the EU, or for that matter anywhere in the world, for the
most hazardous radioactive waste i.e. that represented by the categories HLW
and spent fuel to be disposed of directly. As a result the amounts indicated in
the 5th Situation Report, have increased still further. These
materials remain stored in temporary surface and near surface storage
facilities in those EU Member States with active or past nuclear power
programmes. The above figures also show that there are significant
accumulations of stockpiled waste in other less hazardous categories, including
LILW-SL for which many countries still do not have access to disposal sites,
even though disposal of this category has taken place routinely, in engineered
facilities, for several decades now.
(d)             
Additional radioactive waste and spent
fuel arisings from 2004 to 2020:
VLLW:           440 000 m3
– of which almost 85% will arise in France
LILW-SL:      900 000 m3
– of which almost 400 000 m3 will arise in countries with no current
disposal route
LILW-LL:      430 000 m3 –
for all of which there is currently no disposal route and of which almost 80% will
arise in UK
HLW:  2 300 m3 – the
majority being vitrified waste from the reprocessing of spent fuel.
SF:      48 000 te – of which at
least 23 000 te will be placed in long-term storage for direct disposal
These figures represent quantities of
wastes and spent fuel generated additional to those already existing at the end
of 2004. As can be seen from the above figures the rate of waste generation in
the VLLW and LILW will continue to increase in the short- to medium-term, with
most of the increase coming from decommissioning activities, dominated by the
programme in the UK, especially in terms of LILW-LL.
The figures are somewhat speculative since
they rely on the assumption that certain decisions will be taken e.g. timing of
decommissioning activities (immediate vs. delayed). However whatever decisions
are taken these wastes will arise, only the timing can be changed. It is
feasible that further volume reduction is achieved through changes in waste
conditioning techniques; however this will not affect the overall radioactivity
(and hazard) of the waste, only the repository space that might be required.
There will be little change in spent fuel
generated, since the reactor closures, especially in Germany and UK, will take
place gradually over the period. Additionally the effect of defuelling of
closed reactors (removal of all spent fuel from the reactor core) is an
additional consideration. What will change over the period is balance between
reprocessing (HLW) and direct disposal (SF). The last German SF for reprocessing
was transported in 2005, in line with the agreement on the phase-out of nuclear
energy. Belgium is currently continuing with its moratorium on reprocessing,
already in place since 1993. No further reprocessing contracts have been signed
for UK domestic fuel, with reprocessing operations in Sellafield possibly to cease
entirely by 2013 continue until at least 2015 for
Thorp and 2016 for Magnox.
This means that, assuming present policies continue, only three Member States,
Bulgaria, France and the Netherlands will reprocess their spent fuel, likely to
be less than 1000 te annually. Italy has stated its intention to reprocess its
remaining spent fuel.

6.                 
developments in waste policies and practices
(Tables E-L)

In this section a general overview is given
of Member States' policies and practices, together with financing aspects and
the responsibilities concerning implementation

6.1.           
Policies and Practices:

Since the previous Situation Report, a good
example of new legislation for radioactive waste management has been adopted in
France. It covers all types of waste streams up to the final disposal.

6.1.1.     
Spent Fuel / HLW

The first choice facing Member States is
their choice of spent fuel management policy i.e. reprocessing or direct
disposal. The first option will recover plutonium and uranium for possible
re-use, but also generate HLW, LILW-LL and LILW-SL, all of which will require
disposal. In the case of the first two categories, this should take place in a
deep geological repository. Currently five states make use of the reprocessing
option; Bulgaria, France, Germany (in the case of the remaining spent fuel at
reprocessing facilities), the Netherlands and UK. Italy also intends to
reprocess the remaining fuel from its closed reactors. If current plans are
pursued, UK and
Germany will no longer reprocess fuel once the current contracts expire. The UK is
still keeping open the option of new business for Thorp, but any new contracts
would need Government approval. Belgium
has a moratorium on new reprocessing contracts since 1993. In the past Spain
exported a small amount of fuel for reprocessing, but has since stored all fuel
at its NPPs (Spain is planning a centralised storage facility for HLW and spent
fuel to be operational before 2011).
Where spent fuel is not to be reprocessed,
the normal management option is an extended period of storage, at least 30
years, followed by deep geological disposal. For these other states direct
disposal of spent fuel forms the reference management scenario. Currently two
states, Finland and Sweden are actively pursuing this option. However in the
majority of states a definitive spent fuel policy does not exist, other than
arrangements to ensure a safe extended period of storage (50 – 100
years).Whatever the management route chosen, the only disposal option for HLW /
spent fuel is deep geological disposal. Although most states are committed in
principle to this option, it is likely that by 2025 only three states will have
operational deep repositories for HLW / spent fuel; Finland, France and Sweden.
Although Germany has a target date of 2030, this looks increasingly difficult,
in view of the continuing moratorium on exploration work at the Gorleben site and the limited follow-up to
the 2002 AkEnd study the issue
of repository siting for all wastes.
Beyond this group of states only Belgium
has an underground laboratory, with notional dates for construction (2025) and
operation (2040) of a repository. In the UK, the NDA's current planning assumption is
that a repository will be ready to accept HLW by 2040. For the
remaining states target dates for operational repositories are from around 2050
onwards, if one has even been set at all. Generally the work carried out in
this latter group of countries has been rather limited, even as regards setting
out a procedure for the various steps towards a repository.
Most of these countries (those with smaller
nuclear programmes) participated in the SAPIERR project under the Euratom 6th
Framework Programme (FP6), exploring the conditions to be met for a possible
shared repository. A follow-up project: SAPIERR II commenced at the end of 2006
and can be seen as the second step of a long-term, adaptively staged
decision-making process. The main objective of SAPIERR II is to propose an
European development strategy and organisational structure to manage the
process.
Finally, some countries have only very
small quantities of spent fuel originating from research reactors only.
Generally the management solution is covered by ‘take-back’ agreements, where
the spent fuel is returned to the country of origin. 

6.1.2.     
LILW-LL

Like HLW / spent fuel it is generally
acknowledged that LILW-LL requires disposal in a geological repository. This
category of waste arises largely through reprocessing operations and
decommissioning. As the disposal route is the same as for HLW, it also follows
that in general terms the progress in terms of disposal routes is similar
(Germany might be an exception here as for non-heat developing long-lived waste
a deep repository might be operational before 2014). It should be noted that
some states which give dates for HLW disposal actually make no mention of this
type of waste in terms of disposal dates or even how it should be disposed of.
Open questions include whether or not HLW and LILW-LL should be co-disposed
i.e. placed in the same repository. It should be mentioned however that the
short-term hazard presented by conditioned LILW-LL is significantly less than
that of HLW. However the overall disposal volumes will be considerably greater.
In terms of implementation it is likely that by 2020 Denmark, Germany (assuming
use of Konrad) and Hungary will have operational repositories capable of taking
this type of waste, although mainly due to these countries policy of disposing
all radioactive wastes in deeper facilities.

6.1.3.     
LILW-SL

This category represents the largest volume
of waste in all Member States. It is here that polices and practices are most
developed. Disposal normally takes place in engineered surface or near-surface
facilities. In the sixteen ‘NPP states’ seven currently practice disposal in
surface or near surface facilities. In addition a number of countries are at
various stages of implementation from conception through to final construction.
By 2020 it is likely that all the ‘NPP states’ with the exception of the
Netherlands, will have an operational repository for these wastes. In addition,
Denmark and Latvia should also have operational repositories.

6.1.4.     
VLLW 

As already stated the concept of VLLW arose
to deal with those wastes where the degree of isolation and confinement
required is considerably reduced compared to LILW-SL. Currently France, Sweden
and UK carry out large-scale VLLW disposals. Lithuania and Spain are currently
constructing disposal facilities and it is likely that others will do so as the
need to manage large volumes of decommissioning wastes arises in the future.
Those countries that intend to use only deep disposal for their wastes e.g.
Germany and the Netherlands, are unlikely to categorise any waste as VLLW, but
instead will probably make use of the possibility of clearance to enable wastes
to be disposed of as conventional waste or recycled. France has decided against
large-scale clearance of such wastes, on both cost and public perception
grounds.

6.1.5.     
Other Wastes

Although not generally considered in this
report there are radioactive wastes generated as a result of non-nuclear
activities: These include sealed-sources and medical isotopes. Most countries
now have arrangements in place whereby ‘take-back’ provisions must be incorporated
into the supply contract. Nevertheless there are large numbers of historical
sealed-sources not covered by such provisions. When disposal facilities become
available for the full range of fuel-cycle generated wastes, they should also
be able to take radioactive wastes from other activities. However for the
smaller countries, that do not have sufficient waste to justify construction of
a repository, solutions will still need to be found.

6.2.           
Financing 

It is not the intention to cover this
aspect in detail, since the Commission already publishes detailed reports on
the financing of decommissioning and waste management activities[9]. Additionally in 2006
the Commission published a recommendation concerning decommissioning and waste
management funds[10].
It can be seen however from Table F that for all states where information is
available, funding mechanisms are in place or are under preparation.

6.3.           
Organisational Responsibilities 

An area that has seen further developments
since the 5th Situation Report is that of responsibilities in the field of
waste management and in particular the role played by Waste Management
Organisations (WMO). Since 2000 eight Member States have established or
reorganised their WMO. The role of such organisations varies widely between
Member States from those concentrating mainly on repository development and
operation e.g. ANDRA in France, to those which have responsibility for all
historic liabilities including site operation, such as in Slovakia (JAVYS) and
UK (NDA). Additionally the status varies from that of a public utility to
subsidiary of commercial NPP operators, as in Sweden (SKB) and Finland
(Posiva). 
Although in some smaller countries there is
a dedicated WMO, there are several where the quantity of waste concerned would
not justify such an organisation. In these cases a department of the radiation
protection regulator usually takes responsibility for such matters. In Greece
and Portugal, the responsibility is taken by the national research centres
which in any case are also the main generators of radioactive waste.
It would seem that there is no single model
for a successful WMO. The main requirement would seem to be that
responsibilities are clearly laid down and that there are adequate financial
arrangements.

7.                 
International Developments - Joint Convention
(Table M)

The Joint Convention is considered here
separately as it has become a significant contributor setting the principles
for the management of radioactive waste and spent fuel in the EU. Of the
current 27 Member States 24 have acceded to the Convention, as has the Euratom
Community itself. This latter is significant since as a result the Convention
becomes part of Community legislation. Along with the individual national
reports from Member States, a Euratom report was presented to the 2nd
Review Meeting of the Convention during 2006. The Community was represented
during the Review meeting by the Commission, allowing it to observe at first
hand and contribute to the review process.
Details of the review process and summary reports
from the meeting can be found on the IAEA website[11]. It is generally
agreed that the convention has the potential to be an incentive for
participants to make progress in the safety of waste management through
feedback from other participant states. This is especially true when the
contracting parties are using the review process to drive a continual
improvement in safety of radioactive waste management rather than just
demonstrating compliance with the articles of the convention.. 

8.                 
Conclusions
8.1.           
Waste Quantities

An increase has been observed in the rate
of generation of the volume of radioactive waste since the 5th
Situation Report. This concerns mainly the categories LILW-SL and LILW-LL.
Annual generation of HLW / SF, which generally depends on the size of the
nuclear power programme, remains broadly constant.
Quantities of waste in storage have
increased, especially HLW and LILW-LL as there are as yet no disposal routes
available. 

8.2.           
Developments in Waste Policies and Practices

It is generally possible to identify the
policies and practices of Member States concerning waste and spent fuel
management. In the case of VLLW and LILW-SL it is likely that almost all Member
States with nuclear power programmes (and some 'non-nuclear power' states) will
implement disposal solutions in the medium term i.e. by 2020.
However for HLW and spent fuel (for direct
disposal) only a handful of states i.e. those actively pursuing repository
development can be said to have definitive policies in place. The same
situation exists for LILW-LL, since for these wastes also the preferred
solution is geological disposal, whether in the same repository as HLW /spent
fuel or separately.

8.3.           
Organisational Responsibilities

In all Member States the responsibilities
concerning waste management seem to be clearly identified and assigned, with
significant roles given to national waste management organisations.

8.4.           
International Developments

The Joint Convention to date appears to
have been a driver in promoting and assuring improvements in the safety of
waste management. This is likely to continue, although there is some concern
about how some states attempt to use the review process.

9.                      
Data Tables 
 
 Table A || Nuclear installed capacity || 13 
 Table B || Waste quantities disposed of by end of 2004 || 15 
 Table C || Waste and spent fuel production in 2004 || 17 
 Table D || Waste and spent fuel in Storage || 19 
 Table E || Additional waste and spent fuel arisings to 2020 || 21 
 Table F || Financing schemes for radioactive waste || 22 
 Table G || Radioactive waste management organisations (WMO) || 27 
 Table H || Principal underground research laboratories (URL) and exploratory mines for HLW / SF || 28 
 Table I || National management strategies for radioactive waste and spent fuel || 29 
 Table J || Bodies with responsibilities in the management of radioactive waste and spent fuel ||   
   || (I) Member States with active or past nuclear power programmes || 34 
   || (II) Member States without nuclear power programmes || 37 
 Table K || Interim storage facilities for vitrified high-level waste || 38 
 Table L || Interim storage facilities for spentfuel || 39 
 Table M || The Joint Convention – ratification status || 39 
   || Abbreviations and Acronyms || 28 
Table A:         Nuclear
installed capacity
 country || installed capacity at June 2008 (GWe) [12] || comments || Predicted capacity at end 2020 (GWe) || comments 
 Belgium ||  5.82 ||   || 4.04 || In principle NPPs close after 40 years operation 
 Bulgaria ||  1.91 || 1.91 under construction || 3.81 ||   
 Czech Rep. ||  3.62 ||   || 1.93 || In principle NPPs type VVER 213 close after 30 years operation 
 Finland ||  2.70 || 1.60 under construction || 4.28 ||   
 France || 63.26 || 1.60 under construction || 64.70 ||   
 Germany || 20.47 ||   || 1.70 || Assuming continuation of phase-out policy 
 Hungary ||  1.83 ||   || 1.76 ||   
 Lithuania ||  1.19 || covered by an early closure agreement || 3.20 || Assuming construction of 2 EPR type units 
 Netherlands ||  0.48 ||   || 0.45 || Lifetime extension agreed for single BWR NPP 
 Romania ||  1.30 || 0.66 under construction || 2.62 || Possible further 2 CANDU units 
 Slovakia ||  2.03 || 0.82 covered by an early closure agreement; a further 0.82 construction suspended || 1.62 || Assuming completion of Mochovce units 3 and 4 
 Slovenia ||  0.67 ||   || 0.68 ||   
 Spain ||  7.45 ||   || 7.007.38 || For the purposes of planning and calculation the General Radioactive Waste Plan considers 40 years service lifetime for the existing NPPs 
 Sweden ||  9.01 ||   || 8.91 ||   
 UK || 10.22 ||   || 2.44 ||   
 Total EU-27 || 131.96 ||   || 109.13 ||   
Table B:         Waste quantities
disposed of by end of 2004 
 || country || quantity (m³) || period || origin / type of waste[13] || type of disposal[14] || site(s) || still in use? 
 || Belgium || 15,000 || till 1982 || LILW || ocean || North Atlantic || no 
 Bulgaria || 260 || 1964-1994 || institutional || surface || Novi han || yes, but for storage only || 
 Czech Rep. || 4 700 || 1994-present || NPP operational || surface || Dukovany || yes || 
   || 330 || 1958-1965 || institutional || mine (limestone) || Hostím || no || 
   || 6 300 || 1964-present || institutional || mine (limestone) || Richard || yes || 
   || 880 || 1972-present || institutional, only natural radionuclides || mine (uranium) || Bratrství || yes || 
 Estonia || 110 || 1963-1995 || institutional || RADON || Tammiku (Saku) || no || 
 || Finland || 4 140 || 1992-present || NPP operational || rock cavern || VLJ-repository, Olkiluoto || yes 
 ||   || 1 230 || 1998-present || NPP operational || rock cavern || Loviisa || yes 
 || France || 9 900 || 1967-1969 || LILW || ocean || North Atlantic || no 
 ||   || 527 000 || 1969-1994 || LILW-SL || surface || Centre de la Manche || no 
 ||   || 137 000 || 1992-present || LILW-SL || surface || Centre de l’Aube || yes 
 ||   || 18 200 || 2003-present || VLLW || surface || Morvilliers || yes 
 || Germany || 96 || 1967 || LILW || ocean || North Atlantic || no 
 ||   || 16,150 || 1967-1978 || LILW || deep || Asse salt mine || no 
 || Germany (cont.) || 36,753 (includes 6,617 SRS) || 1971-1998 || LILW || deep || Morsleben Repository || no 
 Hungary || 5000 || 1976-present || institutional + formerly NPP operational || surface || Püspökszilágy || yes, but space very limited || 
 || Italy || 23 || 1967 || LILW || ocean || North Atlantic || no 
 Latvia || 800 || 1963-present || institutional || RADON || Baldone || yes, but very small scale disposal only || 
 Lithuania || 120 || 1963-1988 || institutional || RADON || Maišiagala || no || 
 || The Netherlands || 8 700 || till 1982 || LILW || ocean || North Atlantic || no 
 Poland || 2 800 || 1961-present || institutional || surface || Różan || yes || 
 Romania || 1 370 || 1985-2000 || institutional || mine (uranium) || Baita-Bihor || yes, operation under review || 
 Slovakia || 2 380 || 1999-present || LILW-SL || surface || Mochovce || yes || 
 || Spain || 51 170 || 1992-present || LILW-SL || surface || El Cabril || yes 
 || Sweden || 30 446 || 1989-present || LILW-SL || rock cavern || SFR-1 || yes 
 ||   || 3929 || 1986-present || VLLW || surface || Forsmark(FKA) || yes 
 ||   || 7346 || 1986-present || VLLW || surface || Oskarshamn (OKG) || yes 
 ||   || 3471 || 1993-present || VLLW || surface || Ringhals (RAB) || yes 
 ||   || 999 || 1988-present || VLLW || surface || Studsvik || yes 
 || United Kingdom || 26 00033 000 || till1949- 19823 || LILW || ocean || North Atlantic and UK coastal waters || no 
 ||   || 960 000 || 1959-present || LLW || surface || Near village of Drigg || yes 
 ||   || 30 00033 000 || 1959-2002 || LILW-SL || surface || Dounreay || no 
Table C:         Waste and spent fuel production in the year 2004
 Quantities of spent fuel discharged and waste produced per category during 2004 
 Country || VLLW (m3) || LILW – SL (m3) || LILW – LL (m3) || HLW[15] (m3) || SF (te HM) || comments 
 Austria || - || 108 || 12 || - || - || 90% decommissioning waste 10% institutional waste 
 Belgium || - || 437 || - || 4.2 || 116 || LILW is waste conditioned during 2004; HLW is waste from one transport from La Hague 
 Bulgaria || - || 335 ||   || - || 50 || NPP wastes estimate - does not include 300 m3 NPP liquid waste 
 Czech Rep. || - || 272 || 16 || - || 58,4 ||   
 Denmark || - || 15 || 1 || - || - ||   
 Estonia || - || - || 5 || - || - ||   
 Finland || - || 260 || 1 || - || 69 ||   
 France || 16 600 || 23 600 || 612 || 133 || 1150 || LILW-LL consists of all material conditioned at La Hague and Marcoule in 2004, and includes some pre-2004 wastes. 
 Germany || - || 4068 || 65 || 385 || Does not include approx 1200 m3 intermediate products 
 Greece || - || 2 || - || - || - || Estimate after decay storage and conditioning of solid waste 
 Hungary || - || 190 || 5 || - || 43 || Does not include 260 m3 NPP liquid waste 
 Italy || 300 || 300 || - || - || - ||   
 Latvia || 15 || - || 3 || - || - ||   
 Lithuania || 1140 || 934 || 41 || - || 75 ||   
 Poland || - || 46 || 7 ||   ||   ||   
 The Netherlands || - || 353 || 39 || 1.5 || 0.5 ||   
 Portugal || - || 5 || - || - || - ||   
 Romania || - || 54 || - || - || 100 || LILW-SL may contain some LILW-LL 
 Slovakia || - || 300 || - || - ||   ||   
 Slovenia || - || 37 || - || - || 22.9 || LILW-SL may contain some LILW-LL 
 Spain || - || 745 || - || - || 107 || LILW-SL may contain some LILW-LL 
 Sweden || 45 || 1426 || 363 || - || 380 ||   
 United Kingdom || - || 28 4005 400 || 4 02030 000 || 76 || 10201000 || VLLW not recorded in national inventory. Waste and SF quantities are part actual part estimatePrior to 2004 data reported as LILW-SL was for LLW only. Some LILW-LL may be suitable for shallow disposal if it meets the conditions for acceptance. VLLW which can be disposed of by controlled burial at landfill sites is not formally reported in the UK Radioactive Waste Inventory. 
Table D:         Waste and spent fuel
in storage
 || Quantities of spent fuel and waste in storage at end of 2004 
 Country || VLLW (m3) || LILW – SL (m3) || LILW – LL (m3) || HLW (m3) || SF (te HM) || comments || 
 Austria || - || 1800 || 200 || - || - || Any remaining SF will be shipped to USA under 'take back agreement' || 
 Belgium || - || 13 000 || 4 000 || 444 || 2 675 || Does not include 200 m3 radium-contaminated wastes || 
 Bulgaria || - || 7 636 || - || - || 943 || Does not include liquid wastes (7 400 m3) || 
 Czech Rep. || - || 4510 || 4 || - || 891 ||   || 
 Denmark || - || 1 100 || 125 || - || - || The small amount of SF is considered as LILW-LL || 
 Estonia || - || 400 || 1 || - || - || Mainly from decommissioning of former submarine training centre at Tammiku || 
 Finland || - || 1 940 || 40 || - || 1 416 ||   || 
 France || 128 000 || 98 700 || 92 600 || 1 851 || 8 279 || In addition probably around 3 000 te at NPP || 
 Germany || - || 128 761 || 2 000   || 3 109 || HLW includes 448 m3 untreated heat-generating wastes. LILW includes 47 500 m3 untreated wastes and intermediate products. || 
   ||   ||   ||   || 840 ||   || Total vitrified waste to be returned || 
 Greece || - || 70 || - || - || - ||   || 
 Hungary || - || 1 214 || - || - || 740 || Liquid waste awaiting processing (4 700 m3) not included || 
 Italy || 8 000 || 17 000 || 8 000 || - || 247 ||   || 
 Latvia || - || - || - || - || - || Small quantities of sealed sources only || 
 Lithuania || 26 000 || 57 900 || 760 || - || 1 820 || Does not include liquid wastes || 
 The Netherlands || - || 8550 || 5 || 2 ||   || 
 Poland || - || 30 || 4 || - || 0.6 || Does not include liquid wastes (300 m3) || 
 Portugal || - || 1000 || - || - || - ||   || 
 Romania || - || 472 || 11 || - || 767 ||   || 
 Slovakia || 4 000 || 15 000 || 50 || - || 770 ||   || 
 Slovenia || - || 2362 || - || - || 313 || LILW-SL includes some LILW-LL || 
 Spain || 13935760 || 13 44030230 || 1146 || 13 || 3 195 || HLW currently stored in France; LILW-LL 666 m3 stored in France and the rest stored on site at Vandellos 1 NPP from its decommissioning. VLLW also stored on site at Vandellos 1 from its decommissioning || 
 Sweden || 3 940 || 7 881 || 4 900 || - || 4 930 ||   || 
 United Kingdom || - || 2 000 || 105 000 || 1 8391 200 || 5 4788 000 || HLW is expected to give 1 200 m3 volume conditioned waste ILW and HLW include waste arising from the reprocessing of fuel for foreign customers || 
Table E:         Additional
waste and spent fuel arising to 2020
 || Waste and spent fuel arising to 2020 
 Country || VLLW (m3) || LILW – SL (m3) || LILW – LL (m3) || HLW (m3) || SF ( te HM) || comments || 
 Austria || - || 1440 || 160 || - || - || Decommissioning waste from ASTRA research reactor and other facilities on Seibersdorf site || 
 Belgium || - || 6 600 || 1 600 || 29 || 1 400 || HLW consists of returns from La Hague || 
 Bulgaria || - || 6 000 || 1500 || - || 950 || SF in principle sent for reprocessing || 
 Czech Rep. || - || 5000 || 75 || - || 2150 ||   || 
 Denmark || - || 900 || - || - || - || Includes decommissioning of DR 1 || 
 Estonia || - || - || 5 || - || - ||   || 
 Finland || - || 4 800 || 7 || - || 1 500 || SF includes Olkiluoto-3 || 
 France || 370 000 || 400 000 || 49 300 || 1 770 || 19 600 || SF in principle sent for reprocessing || 
 Germany || - || 93 500 || 900 || 5 420 || HLW consists of returns from Sellafield and La Hague || 
 Greece || - || 30 || - || - || - || Estimate after decay storage and conditioning of solid waste || 
 Hungary || - || 5 400 || - || - || 600 ||   || 
 Italy || - || 30 000 || 9 000 || 60 || - || HLW consists of returns from La Hague. LILW consists of decommissioning wastes. || 
 Latvia || 50 || 40 || 1000 || - || - || Wastes mainly from decommissioning of Salaspils research reactor || 
 Lithuania || 48 000 || 114 000 || 6 600 || - || 620 ||   || 
 The Netherlands || - || 5 100 || 20 || 200 || Spent fuel estimated, as all is sent for reprocessing. Estimated split for LILW is 600 m3 LILW-LL and 4500 m3 LILW-SL. || 
 Poland || - || 540 || 75 || - || - ||   || 
 Portugal || - || 70 || - || - || - || Based on current rate of generation || 
 Romania || - || 1 800 || - || - || 3 400 || LILW-SL includes some LILW-LL || 
 Slovakia ||   || 12 000 || - || - || 750 || LILW-SL mainly from decommissioning of Bohunice-V1, will include some LILW-SL || 
 Slovenia || - || 855 || - || - || 220 || LILW-SL includes some LILW-LL || 
 Spain || 10 000 || 10 100 || 750 || - || 2425 || See table D for returns from France || 
 Sweden || 12 000 || 12 000 || 1 800 || - || 2 700 ||   || 
 United Kingdom || - || 100 000 || 360 000390 000 || 450530 || 8 50010 000 || SF estimate taking into account likely shut down dates of reactors and defuelling. ILW and HLW include waste arising from the reprocessing of fuel for foreign customers || 
Table F:         Financing schemes for
radioactive waste
 country || basis for allocation of charges to waste producers || mechanisms for financing longer term liabilities[16] 
 Austria || A price list updated annually, and approved by the regulatory authority, includes the actual cost of waste management (transport, treatment, conditioning, interim storage) payable to Nuclear Engineering Seibersdorf GmbH || Since the beginning of 2003, all holders of radioactive waste and orphan sources for disposal are obliged to make contributions to a fund for final disposal. Users have to pay this fee to WMO. WMO regularly transfers the collected fees to the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, where this fund has been separately set up for the exclusive purpose of the later final disposal of the conditioned radioactive waste. 
 Belgium || ‘Polluter pays’ principle: Costs are waste category specific and proportional to the volume within each category. ||  WMO is responsible for the management of all radioactive waste in Belgium and, all radioactive waste has to be transferred from the producer or owner to WMO. Upon transfer, the producer or owner pays to WMO the amount which covers the future management costs. These provisions are managed by WMO. 
 Bulgaria || SF management cost included in NPP operation. Waste management activities carried out by SERAW; budget is covered by national fund. || Segregated external funds were created in 1999 to cover decommissioning and waste liabilities. Under the 2003 Regulation funds are collected from radioactive waste producers and managed by the Ministry of Economy and Energy in a dedicated fund. Funds allocated to cover the annual activity programme. Some activities are financed by EU under PHARE and also through the Kozloduy International Decommissioning Support fund (KIDSF). || 
 Czech Rep. || Payments are made into the Nuclear Account and cover all of activities connecting with SF and waste disposal and repository operation. Small producers pay on acceptance of their waste for disposal. || State-controlled segregated fund – the Nuclear Account – receives contributions from waste producers including the nuclear operator who pays levies according to the average production of electricity. Each producer pays according to his share of the total waste and the estimated costs of the WMO’s activities, which are updated according to economic or waste management policy changes. The WMO is responsible for collecting these charges, monitors the adequacy of the reserve and approves any withdrawal. A segregate decommissioning reserve is created. || 
 Denmark || Fees charged for items received from outside Danish Decommissioning || State support as the major costs will arise as a result of the decommissioning of the research facilities at Risø. 
 Estonia || Payment is made by waste producers at the time of transfer of their waste into interim storage. At present, no distinction in charges is made between different types of waste. || State pays for “historical waste” liabilities such as the former soviet nuclear naval training facility at Paldiski and its implementation was entrusted to the Estonian Radioactive Waste Management Agency (A.L.A.R.A.). 
 Finland || The nuclear power companies and the operator of the research reactor present annual cost estimates for the future management of nuclear wastes and ensure that funds are deposited with the State Nuclear Waste Management Fund. || According to the Nuclear Energy Act the licence holder has an obligation to take responsibility for all nuclear waste management measures and their appropriate preparation (including decommissioning costs), and shall cover all the related expenses. This is done by gathering adequate funds for future investments in an independent Finnish State Nuclear Waste Management Fund. To guarantee against the insolvency of the nuclear utilities, they shall provide securities to MTI for the part of financial liability which is not covered by the Fund. 
 France || Unit volume (or commercial tariff for specified packages) on delivery for disposal. || For VLLW and LILW-SL disposal is financed through commercial contracts between the producer and ANDRA. For LILW-LL and HLW waste producers build up provisions on the basis of an evaluation by ANDRA. The regulatory situation and organisation of nuclear decommissioning and waste management in France underwent profound change in 2006 with the adoption new legislation on nuclear waste research and management. ANDRA has to set up an internal restricted fund in order to finance the storage of long lived high and medium level wastes. The fund will be fed by contributions from the nuclear operators under bilateral conventions. The nuclear operators will set up internal restricted funds covered by dedicated assets managed under separate accountability. 
 Germany || State bears the cost for the initial development of repositories. These costs are recovered through contributions (cost per unit volume) or advanced payments. || For privately owned nuclear facilities i.e. NPPS provisions are allocated to the foreseen costs. Provisions for management of radioactive waste from operation are made according to the waste generated. For publicly owned facilities costs are finance d through the annual public budget. 
 Hungary || Official tariff list set by ministerial decree for small producers. || The Central Nuclear Financial Fund, a separate Treasury account made up of the contributions of the nuclear power plant operator, will cover all future waste management and decommissioning costs. Annual payments into the fund by Paks Nuclear Power Plant are proposed by the Minister supervising the Hungarian Atomic Energy Authority (HAEA). Payments are based upon submittals prepared by the PURAM and approved by the HAEA and by the Hungarian Energy Office. || 
 Italy || Official current estimate € 7 000 / m3 forms basis of estimate for waste management liabilities. || ENEL transferred its long-term liabilities fund for decommissioning and waste management (about €750 million) to SOGIN on its creation. As these were judged insufficient an additional levy per kWh, adjusted every 3 years has been implemented. The levy is fixed by the National Authority for the Electricity and Gas on the basis of Sogin’s annual program of activities. 
 Latvia || Fees collected by BAPA for management services as well directly from state budget. || Natural resource tax payable on radioactive substances imported, which generate waste requiring disposal in Latvia. Additional disposal vault and storage facility at Baldone funded under PHARE. 
 Lithuania || NPP operator contributes to the national fund for the decommissioning of Ignalina NPP. Other waste producers contribute through charges to the finances of RATA. || NPP operator and other waste producers contribute through charges to the finances of RATA, which is responsible for managing all waste according to the national strategy. There are also national and international funds for the decommissioning of Ignalina and management of the wastes. The NPP decommissioning fund is financed through a levy of 6% on the price of electricity sold. It co-finances waste management activities with the Ignalina International Decommissioning Support Funds. 
 The Netherlands || For LILW: treatment, volume and radiation level of conditioned waste. For HLW: reserved capacity (volume). || For waste management and final disposal funding the operators pay volumetric fees to Central Organisation for Radioactive Waste (COVRA). COVRA then takes over full title of the waste (i.e. ownership and liability). 
 Poland || Funds available through state budget or from services carried out by RWMP. || No arrangements currently for some long-term activities These will be provided from the state budget as required. 
 Portugal || Part of estimated cost per item of waste. || None. Portugal has no relevant activities or installations in the nuclear field. 
 Romania || Annual allocation of charges to waste producers (to cover operational costs of the new WMO called ANDRAD). || The Government Ordinance 31/2006 defines two segregated funds; one for spent fuel and radioactive waste management and the second one for decommissioning of nuclear facilities. The funding mechanism is scheduled by the end of 2007 (plan: pay a fee based on a certain amount per MWh of electricity delivered). 
 Slovakia || NPP operational wastes management funded from operating budget. || A national fund has steadily built up since the mid-nineties. The State Fund for Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations and Management of Spent Fuel and Radioactive Wastes restructured in 2004. The fund is managed by the Ministry of Economy. Annual contributions by NPP operators are as a levy on the electricity price to the end user. The contributions are reviewed at five year intervals. There is co-funding of activities with the Bohunice International Decommissioning Support Fund. 
 Slovenia || Small waste producers (medicine, industry and research) pay ARAO for services provided on the basis of a price list established by government decree. || The Fund for the Decommissioning of the Krško NPP is financed through a levy on the kWh electricity production. The purpose of the Fund is to collect money as a levy on the produced electricity for future decommissioning and for the disposal of radioactive waste and spent fuel. The Fund operates as an independent legal entity and its work is overseen by a Supervisory Committee. 
 Spain || The National up-front Fund for the activities contemplated in the General Plan for RWM and Decommissioning is being done through incomes collected during the facilities lifetime based on cost estimations. The system isCosts estimations are subjected to annual revision by the Government.   || According to the Royal Decree 5/2005 an updated financing system has been set up. The revenues transferred to the Fund arise from: The amounts collected via the supply and access tariffs for the entire electricity sales. Billing to NPPs licensees for the amount resulting from multiplying the gross KWh monthly generated by each plant by a specific unit value, applicable to waste and SF originated beyond 31st March 2005. Idem to 2 referring to the Juzbado Fuel Assemblies Manufacturing Plant by annual contributions. Billing to the licenses of radioactive installations outside the nuclear cycle via tariffs approved by the MITyC. This case invoicing is done when the waste is collected by ENRESA. 
 Sweden || Costs for operational LILW disposal are paid for directly by producers. Costs for management of spent fuel and long-lived LILW are levied on power generators (i.e. waste producers) by means of fees on generated electricity. || The Nuclear Waste Fund administrated by a special Board and invested with the Swedish National Debt Office, though SKI SSM (regulator) advises Government, on the basis of an estimate made by SKB, regarding the size of the fees and must approve the main disbursements. The fees are reviewed annually. Additional guarantees are requires to cover early closure of NPPs (< 25 years operation) and unforeseen and unforeseen waste management costs. The funds are set up as external segregated funds with considerable oversight especially with respect to fund investment. 
 United Kingdom || Charges are levied by waste managers on waste producers for disposal of Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLW). For higher level wastes, no charges are levied at present, there being no disposal facilities available || Historic liabilities (previously owned by BNFL and the UKAEA) assumed by NDA will be funded through a combination of continued commercial operation of some facilities and the state budget. The NDA’s strategy for dealing with radioactive waste is dependent on the outcome of reviews initiated by the UK Government. British Energy has its own segregated fund to cover its own liabilities. 
Table G:         Radioactive waste
management organisations (WMO)
 Country || WMO || Comments 
 Austria || NES || Public /Private. An affiliate of Austrian Research Centers GmbH (ARC) 
 Belgium || ONDRAF/NIRAS || Public, established in 1980 
 Bulgaria || SERAW || Public, established in 2004 
 Czech Rep. || SÚRAO (RAWRA) || Public, established in 1997 
 Denmark || DD || Public, established in 2003 
 Estonia || A.L.A.R.A. AS || Public, established in 1995 
 Finland || POSIVA || Private, established in 1995 by NPP operators 
 France || ANDRA || Public, established in 1991 
 Germany || DBE || Public under authority of BfS (Federal Office for Radiation Protection) 
 Hungary || PURAM || Public, established in 1998 
 Italy || SOGIN || Public, established in 1999 
 Latvia || BAPA || Public, established in 2005 
 Lithuania || RATA || Public, established in 2001 
 The Netherlands || COVRA || Public, established in 1982 
 Poland || RWMP || Public, established in 2002 
 Romania || ANDRAD || Public, established in 2003 
 Slovakia || JAVYS || Public, established in 2005 
 Slovenia || ARAO || Public, established in 1991 
 Spain || ENRESA || Public, established in 1984 
 Sweden || SKB AB || Private, owned by NPP operators, established in 1972 
 United Kingdom || NDA || Public, established in 2005 (Its predecessor WMO, Nirex, was established in 1982) 
Table H:         Principal
underground research laboratories (URL) and exploratory mines for        HLW /
SF
 country || URL || Operator || details 
 Belgium || HADES || EURIDICE (cooperation of ONDRAF / NIRAS & SCK×CEN || Boom clay (plastic) at ~ 230m depth on SCK×CEN site at Mol; has been extended as part of ongoing PRACLAY project 
 Finland || Onkalo || Posiva || Under construction, characterisation planned 2009 onwards at 520m depth, planned to be incorporated into disposal facility with first disposal ~ 2020 
 France || Bure || ANDRA || Callovo-Oxfordian clay (hard) at ~ 450 to 500 m depth. Meuse Department. Construction completed in 2006 
   || Tournemire || IRSN || sediments (hard clay), 250 m depth; started 1990; former railway tunnel & adjacent galleries; methodological laboratory only 
 Germany || Asse mine || DBE || Former potash / rock salt mine; R&D facility until 1997. Closure currently in preparation and scheduled for 2013. 
   || Gorleben || DBE || Salt dome at 800m depth. Exploration works since 1986. Moratorium since 2000 
 Sweden || Äspö HRL || SKB || granite, 200 - 500 m depth 
   || Stripa mine || SKB || Granite, former iron ore mine 360 – 410 m research from 1977- 1991. Now closed 
 Switzerland || Grimsel Test Site || NAGRA || granite, reached through main access tunnel of hydro power company KWO~ 450 m depth; operational since 1983 
 Switzerland || Mt. Terri Project || Swiss Federal Office of Topography || opalinus clay (hard), ~ 400 m depth; gallery off a road tunnel; started 1995 
Table I:          National
management strategies for radioactive waste and spent fuel
 country || VLLW (if applicable) & LILW || HLW / SF || 
 Austria || Interim storage of conditioned waste (LILW) at the Research Center Seibersdorf. Study in 2001 concluded that surface disposal was not an option in view of the presence of long-lived waste. However, in view of the small quantities a regional solution is the preferred option || - || 
 Belgium || Interim storage of conditioned waste at the Belgoprocess site in Dessel pending the availability of a disposal site. Surface disposal repository planned for Dessel, with construction commencing around 2011. || Storage at the Belgoprocess site of returned vitrified waste from reprocessing at La Hague. SF is now being stored in AFR facilities on NPP sites – current policy is a moratorium on further reprocessing contracts. However both open and closed fuel cycle scenarios are considered. Underground research continuing at the HADES facility at Mol concerning the concept of deep geological disposal in clay. Construction of a deep geological repository would not start before 2025, with possible operation around 2040. The WMO is a member of ARIUS and participated in the SAPPIERR project. || 
 || Bulgaria || Processing of all waste. Construction of a national near-surface repository for LILW-SL (both institutional and from NPP) by 2015. The repository should assure storage of waste not suitable for near surface disposal. || Transfer of SF for storage and reprocessing in Russia with HLW return, under terms of 1995 agreement. SF can be declared waste if a disposal route is available. Storage of SF in reactor ponds and wet store at Kozloduy. Dry store to be commissioned around 2009, which can store both SF and HLW (after return from Russia). Decision on HLW disposal concept around 2012. Bulgaria participated in the SAPIERR project. 
 || Czech Rep. || Treatment and conditioning of all waste, disposal in one of the operation disposal sites or safe storage of waste that can not be deposited in the existing repositories. || Long term interim storage of all SF pending the availability of a disposal route. The national management strategy does not foresee a deep geological disposal site in operation before 2065. Six possible locations have been identified. It is anticipated a deep repository will accommodate all the waste that can not be deposited in near-surface repositories, SF once it is declared as waste and HLW from decommissioning. 
 Denmark || Interim storage of conditioned waste at Risø National Laboratory. Repository concept under development. "Basis for Decision" outlining development expected to be approved. || International solution being sought for small amount of SF remaining in line with earlier solutions regarding SF from research reactors. || 
 || Estonia || All waste from the decommissioning of Paldiski and from institutional sources is conditioned for long-term storage at Paldiski pending the availability of a disposal route. || None (all SF from the Paldiski training reactors was returned to Russia) 
 Finland || Routine disposal of operational NPP waste in underground (intermediate depth) repositories at the two NPP sites. || SF stored in AFR facilities on NPP sites. The Decision in Principle by the Finnish Parliament in 2001 endorsed the selection of Olkiluoto as the site for the development of a deep disposal facility, subject to approval by the regulatory authorities. The repository is planed for operation around 2020. Posiva is now constructing the underground research facility Onkalo, which is planned to be part of the planned repository. || 
 France || Routine disposal of short-lived LILW at the Centre de l’Aube facility. Centre de Morvilliers opened in 2003 for disposal of VLLW. Long-term storage of conditioned LILW-LL pending development of disposal solution || Routine reprocessing of most, but not all, SF. Unreprocessed SF is stored at La Hague. Deep geological disposal of HLW, based on investigations in Bure underground laboratory. Decision on a site expected by 2015, with operation of a repository by 2025. || 
 Germany || In line with its objective to dispose of this waste in deep geological formations, the Federal Government is not pursuing any plans for near-surface repositories. After the dismissal of court cases against the licence issued for the Konrad repository in 2002, covering non-heat developing waste, work has started to transform the former iron ore mine into a repository. Disposal operations are planned to start at the end of 2013. || Returned vitrified waste following reprocessing of SF at La Hague or Sellafield is stored at Gorleben. Final transport of SF for reprocessing took place in 2005. No further contracts are allowed All new generated SF is placed in dry stores adjacent to NPPs, until availability of deep geological repository. The Federal Government is aiming to establish a repository in deep geological formations for the disposal of all kinds of waste, including spent fuel assemblies, by the year 2030. All activities at the Gorleben site remain actually suspended. Since November 2005 the present government aims to find solutions and progress by 2009. || 
 Greece || Wastes are stored at the NCSR Demokritos and in users’ premises under GAEC inspection. || SF return to supplier state || 
 || Hungary || Institutional LILW-SL waste still to be disposed of at Püspökszilágy, though spare capacity is limited. An underground repository (200m) for NPP operational and decommissioning LILW waste is under construction at Bátaapáti, to be operational by 2008. || Long term interim storage of all SF in AFR facility pending the availability of a disposal route. The reference scenario is domestic direct disposal in deep geologic repository, although other scenarios are kept open. The current target is to finalize URL by 2012, with possible SF/HLW repository operation by the end of the 2040's (candidate site at Boda). PURAM is a member of ARIUS and participated in the SAPIERR project. 
 Ireland || The small quantities of waste are stored on site by users. || - || 
 Italy || Wastes to be conditioned and stored at point of origin. A national disposal facility is foreseen for VLLW and LILW-SL. As yet no timetable for implementation, although the stated aim of decommissioning all facilities by 2020 will require the availability of a disposal option. || All remaining SF stored in NPP ponds and will be exported for reprocessing. A centralised store for the HLW returned is envisaged. In principle HLW and any remaining SF will be disposed of in a deep geological disposal. Italy participated in the SAPIERR project and participates in SAPIERR II. || 
 || Latvia || Wastes from decommissioning of Salaspils will be disposed of at Baldone, which is currently being expanded. LLLW-LL stored pending availability of deep repository (national or regional); Latvia participated in the SAPIERR project. || SF from the research reactor at Salaspils is planned to be moved out of Latvia in the framework of USA–IAEA–Russia co-operation project and proposed Latvia–Russia governmental Agreement on co-operation in the spent fuel management. 
 || Lithuania || VLLW disposal facility currently under construction. Confirmed site for disposal of LILW-SL at Stabatiškė, in the vicinity of the Ignalina NPP. The design work is to start in 2008, the construction in 2012, and the near-surface repository is to be commissioned in 2015. Initial investigations for an intermediate-depth repository for waste not acceptable for near-surface disposal. || SF categorized as radioactive waste. Storage in dry store for at least 50 years prior to disposal in deep geological repository. Some initial investigations have taken place. Lithuania participated in the SAPIERR project and participates in SAPIERR II. 
 || The Netherlands || Long-term interim storage of conditioned waste at the COVRA facility in Borssele. (Near) surface disposal option not considered. || All SF to be reprocessed and vitrified wastes returned and stored in the HABOG facility at Borssele. Current policy is long-term interim storage (100 years) prior to a definitive decision. Participated in the SAPIERR project and participates in SAPIERR II. 
 Portugal || Interim storage at the DPRSN facility at Sacavém. || Small quantities of HLW stored at Sacavém. All research reactor spent fuel returned to USA. || 
 || Poland || Disposal of Institutional LILW at the Różan facility, together with interim storage of long-lived waste. Some siting activities have taken place for a replacement repository, but have stalled due to lack of local support at the concerned sites. || SF is in temporary pond storage at Swierk from research reactors. Placement of this material into dry storage is underway, financed by state budget and under PHARE. 
 || Romania || Disposal of institutional short-lived waste at Baita Bihor site. NPP operational wastes to be disposed of in near surface repository, planned to be built till 2014. Conditioning of LL-LILW and storage minimum 50 years prior to deep geological disposal together with SF. || Open fuel cycle, SF considered as radioactive waste. Six years wet storage at NPP, followed by minimum 50 years in Spent Fuel Dry Store. Deep geological disposal in a national repository that should be available around 2050. Regarding the SF from research reactors – return to the country of origin and/or deep geological disposal in the national repository. 
 || Slovakia || All suitable wastes are sent to the Mochovce facility for disposal (both institutional and NPP operational waste). VLLW disposal facility under consideration. Wastes not suitable for Mochovce stored pending availability of deep geological repository. || Storage of SF for 50 years followed by deep geological disposal. Other alternatives are also considered. A proposal for back-end fuel-cycle policy is expected in 2007. As yet there is no timetable for repository development. Slovakia was represented in the SAPIERR study and is represented in SAPIERR II as well. 
 || Slovenia || All waste currently being stored – mainly at Krško NPP – pending the availability of a national repository. The site should be determined around 2008, with operation around 2013. || All SF is currently stored in the AR pond at Krško NPP – there is sufficient space for the projected reactor lifetime. Current plans include operation of a dry store from 2023, with an operational deep geological repository around 2065, although export is also considered. 
 Spain || Routine disposal of VLLW and short-lived LILW at the El Cabril facility. VLLW repository under construction at El Cabril; planned to be available insince July 2008. LILW-LL stored pending availability of a deep geological repository. || The GRWP in force considers as a basic element of the reference scenario an open cycle strategy. Since 1982 all SF is currently stored in AR fuel ponds; except at Trillo NPP, where a dry cask AFR storage has operated since 2002. Some vitrified waste is due to be returned from France around 2010 by the reprocessing of the SNF from Vandellos 1 (Gas Cooled Reactor). GRWM plan assumes the availability of a central SF store around the same time and a HLW / SF repository around 2050. || 
 Sweden || Routine disposal either in surface facilities at nuclear sites (VLLW) or in SFR-1 underground facility close to Forsmark NPP (LILW-SL). Planned disposal of decommissioning waste in an extension to SFR-1 with operation in 2020. A repository for LILW-LL will be sited in about 2035. || All SF is stored centrally in the CLAB facility at Oskarshamn. The WMO is proceeding with detailed site investigations at two possible deep disposal sites, with the approval of the local municipalities and the government. Site selection is expected around 2008, with repository operation around 2018. || 
 United Kingdom || Routine disposal of LLW at the Low Level Waste Repository near to the village of Drigg in Cumbria. Plans exist for surface repository at Dounreay for LLW wastes from that site. LILW-LL is stored at the sites of production and is being progressively conditioned into a form suitable for long-term management. LILW-LL will be disposed of in a deep geological repository. || All remaining Magnox fuel will not be reprocessed until 2016 or later. AGR reprocessing contracts will be fulfilled by 2011, leaving 3500 te AGR and 1200 te PWR fuel in storage. Since 2006, official policy for HLW is deep geological disposal, together with the appropriate long-term storage. || 
Table J:          Bodies
with responsibilities in the management of radioactive waste and spent fuel   
(I) Member States with
active or past nuclear power programmes[17]
 country || category of waste || regulatory authority || waste treatment and/or conditioning || waste transport || development and/or operation of interim storage facilities || development and/or operation of disposal facilities 
 Belgium || LILW || FANC || WMO & waste producers || WMO || WMO || WMO 
 HLW / SF || WMO (& industry for SF) 
 Bulgaria || LILW || NRA || WMO || Waste Producer /WMO || WMO || WMO 
   || HLW / SF ||   ||   || Industry || Industry ||   
 Czech Rep. || LILW || SÚJB || Waste Producer || Waste Producer || Waste Producer and WMO || WMO 
   || SF ||   ||   ||   || NPP Operator ||   
 Finland || LILW || STUK || Waste Producers || Industry || Industry || Waste Producer 
   || SF ||   ||   ||   ||   || WMO 
 France || LILW & HLW / SF || ASN || Industry and WMO || Industry || - Industry for short-term interim storage: industry - R&D for long-term storage: CEA || WMO 
 Germany || LILW || BfS || waste producers || waste producers || waste producers and/or collecting depots (Landessammelstellen) || DBE acting on behalf of BfS 
 HLW / SF || industry 
 Hungary || LILW || HAEA[18] || Waste producers || WMO || Industry and WMO || WMO 
   || SF ||   || WMO ||   ||   ||   
 Italy || LILW || APAT || NUCLECO for non-fuel cycle wastes SOGIN for NPP wastes || commercial operators || NUCLECO for non-fuel cycle wastes SOGIN for NPP wastes || ENEA 
   || HLW / SF ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Lithuania || LILW || VATESI (RSC for institutional waste) || waste producers || waste producers (WMO for institutional waste) || Waste producer || WMO (NPP for VLLW) 
   || SF ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 The Netherlands || LILW & HLW / SF || VROM (KFD) || WMO & waste producers || WMO || WMO || WMO 
 Romania || LILW || CNCAN || IFIN for institutional waste; industry for NPP waste || IFIN for institutional waste; industry for NPP waste || IFIN for institutional waste; industry for NPP waste || WMO 
   || SF ||   ||   || industry || industry ||   
 Slovakia || LILW || ÚJD SR || WMO + waste producers || WMO || WMO || WMO 
   || SF ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Slovenia || LILW / SF || URSJV || WMO + waste producers || WMO || WMO / waste producers || WMO 
 Spain || LILW & HLW / SF || MITYC & CSN || WMO & waste producers || WMO || WMO & waste producers || WMO 
 Sweden || LILW || SKI & SSISSM || Waste producer || Waste producer & WMO || WMO || WMO 
   || SF ||   || WMO ||   ||   ||   
 United Kingdom || LILW || - HSE (NII) for safety of nuclear installations - EA (England & Wales) and SEPA (Scotland) for discharges to the environment and disposal || waste producers || waste producers || Waste producers || WMO 
   || HLW / SF ||   ||   ||   
(II) Member States without nuclear power
programmes
 country || Responsible bodies 
 Austria || Nuclear Engineering Seibersdorf GmbH (NES) is responsible for radioactive waste management. The Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management has the main responsibilities for regulation, licensing and supervision in the field of radioactive waste management 
 Cyprus || The Radiation Inspections and Control Service of the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance is responsible for licensing concerning sealed sources 
 Denmark || Danish Decommissioning (DD) is responsible for radioactive waste management. The Nuclear Regulatory Authorities are the Nuclear Office under the Danish Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Radiation Hygiene under the National Board Of Health. 
 Estonia || A.L.A.R.A. AS is responsible for radioactive waste management. The regulatory authority is the Ministry of the Environment through the Environmaental Inspectorate and the Estonian Radiation Protection Centre ERPC) 
 Greece || The management of radioactive waste is carried out by the NCSR Demokritos. The regulator is the Greek Atomic Energy Commission. 
 Ireland || The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland is responsible for the regulation of the storage, transport and disposal of radioactive waste arising from the use of radioisotopes. 
 Latvia || The State Hazardous Waste Management Agency (BAPA) is responsible for radioactive waste management. The regulator is the Radiation Safety Centre (RDC). 
 Luxembourg || The Radiation Protection Department of the Ministry of Health is responsible for interim storage of disused sealed sources. The regulator is the Ministry of Health. 
 Malta || The Radiation Protection Board is responsible for all licensing issues concerning use of radiation sources. 
 Poland || The Radioactive Waste Management Plant (RWMP) is responsible for radioactive waste management. The regulatory authority is the National Atomic Energy Agency (PAA) 
 Portugal || The Department of Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (DPRSN), of the Nuclear and Technical Institute (ITN) under the Science, Technology and Higher Education Ministry, is responsible for radioactive waste management. The national responsible authorities are the ITN, the General Directorate for Health of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Environment. Since 2005 there is an Independent Commission for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety. 
Table K:         Interim storage
facilities for vitrified high-level waste
 country || facility / site || period of operation || comments 
 Belgium || Dessel, Belgoprocess, Building 129 || 1982 - ||   
   || Dessel, Belgoprocess, Building 136C || 2000 - ||   
 Bulgaria || Kozloduy || 2009 - || under construction 
 France || La Hague || up to ~2050 ||   
   || Marcoule || up to ~2050 ||   
 Germany || BLG (Brennelementlager Gorleben) || 1995-2035 ||   
 The Netherlands || HABOG (COVRA site, Borssele) || 2003 - || Storage for at least 100 years 
 United Kingdom || Vitrified Product Store, Sellafield || 1990 - ||   
Table L:         Interim
storage facilities for spent fuel
 country || facility/site || facility type[19] || period of operation || comments || 
 Belgium || Doel NPP || AFR dry cask || 1995 - ||   || 
   || Tihange NPP || AFR pool || 1997 - ||   || 
   || Dessel || AFR Dry cask || 2001 - ||   || 
 Bulgaria || Kozloduy NPP || AFR pool || 1989 - ||   || 
 ||   || Kozloduy NPP || Dry cask || 2009 - || Under construction 
 || Czech Rep. || Dukovany NPP || AFR dry cask || 1997 - ||   
   || Dukovany NPP || AFR dry cask || 2006 - ||   || 
   || Temelin NPP || AFR dry cask || 2010 - || Planned || 
 Finland || Loviisa NPP || AFR pool || 1978 - || extension from 1985 || 
   || Olkiluoto NPP || AFR pool || 1979 - || extension from 1987 || 
 France || La Hague || pool ||   || Storage for reprocessing || 
 Germany || Ahaus-BZA || dry cask || 1992 - ||   || 
   || Gorleben-BLG || dry cask || 1995 - ||   || 
   || Greifswald-ZAB || AFR pool || 1986 - ||   || 
   || Greifswald-ZLN || AFR dry cask || 1997 - ||   || 
   || 5 reactor sites || AFR dry cask || 2001 - || Temporary facilities; 4 in operation at end 2006 || 
   || 13 reactor sites || AFR dry cask || 2002 - || 10 in operation at end 2006 || 
 Hungary || Paks NPP || AFR dry vault || 1997 - || modular design || 
 Italy || Trino NPP || AR pool || 1965 - ||   || 
   || Caorso NPP || AR pool || 1981 - ||   || 
   || Avogadro || AFR pool || 1971 - ||   || 
 Lithuania || Ignalina NPP || AFR dry cask || 1999 - || CASTOR- and CONSTOR-RBMK casks || 
 || Romania || Cernavoda NPP || AFR dry vault || 2003 - || MACSTOR || 
 || Slovakia || Bohunice NPP || AFR pool || 1986- ||   || 
 Spain || Trillo NPP || AFR dry cask || 2002 - || Fuel from other reactors stored in reactor ponds pending construction of central store || 
 Sweden || CLAB || pool || 1989 - ||   || 
 United Kingdom || Sellafield and NPPs || pool || 1964 – 1988 -–Since 1950 || Magnox reprocessing Thorp reprocessing || 
Table M:        The Joint Convention –
ratification status
 country || date of signature || date of ratification, acceptance or approval || date of entry into force 
 Austria || 17/09/98 || 13/06/01 || 11/09/01 
 Belgium || 08/12/97 || 05/09/02 || 04/12/02 
 Bulgaria || 22/09/98 || 21/06/00 || 18/06/01 
 Cyprus || - || - || - 
 Czech Rep. || 30/09/97 || 25/03/99 || 18/06/01 
 Denmark || 09/02/98 || 03/09/99 || 18/06/01 
 Estonia || 05/01/01 || 03/02/06 || 04/05/06 
 Finland || 02/10/97 || 10/02/00 || 18/06/01 
 France || 29/09/97 || 27/04/00 || 18/06/01 
 Germany || 01/10/97 || 13/10/98 || 18/06/01 
 Greece || 09/02/98 || 18/07/00 || 18/06/01 
 Hungary || 29/09/97 || 02/06/98 || 18/06/01 
 Ireland || 01/10/97 || 20/03/01 || 18/06/01 
 Italy || 26/01/98 || 08/02/06 || 09/05/06 
 Latvia || 27/03/00 || 27/03/00 || 18/06/01 
 Lithuania || 30/09/97 || 16/03/04 || 14/06/04 
 Luxembourg || 01/10/97 || 21/08/01 || 19/11/01 
 Malta || - || - || - 
 The Netherlands || 10/03/99 || 26/04/00 || 18/06/01 
 Poland || 03/10/97 || 05/05/00 || 18/06/01 
 Portugal || - || - || - 
 Romania || 30/09/97 || 06/09/99 || 18/06/01 
 Slovakia || 30/09/97 || 06/10/98 || 18/06/01 
 Slovenia || 29/09/97 || 25/02/99 || 18/06/01 
 Spain || 30/06/98 || 11/05/99 || 18/06/01 
 Sweden || 29/09/97 || 29/07/99 || 18/06/01 
 United Kingdom || 29/09/97 || 12/03/01 || 18/06/01 
 Euratom || - || 04/10/05 || 02/01/06 
Abbreviations
and Acronyms
 AECL || Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. http://www.aecl.ca/ 
 AFR || “away from reactor” (storage) 
 AGR || advanced gas-cooled reactor 
 AkEnd || Arbeitskreis Auswahlverfahren Endlagerstandorte (Germany) http://www.akend.de/ 
 A.L.A.R.A. || “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” – also the name of the Estonian Radioactive Waste Management Agency http://www.alara.ee/ 
 ANDRA || Agence Nationale pour la Gestion des Déchets Radioactifs (France) http://www.andra.fr/ 
 ANDRAD || Agentia Nationala pentru Deseuri Radioactive (Romanian National Agency for Radioactive Waste) http://www.andrad.ro/ 
 APAT || L'Agenzia per la protezione dell'ambiente e per i servizi tecnici (Italian Regulator) http://www.apat.gov.it/ 
 AR || “at reactor” (storage) 
 ARAO || Agencija za radioaktivne odpadke (Slovenian Agency for Radwaste Management) http://www.gov.si/arao/ 
 ARIUS || Association for Regional and International Underground Storage http://www.arius-world.org 
 AVR || Arbeitsgemeinschaft Versuchs Reaktor GmbH ( German test reactor at Jülich) 
 BAPA || Bīstamo atkritumu pārvaldības valsts aģentūra (Latvian State Hazardous Waste Management Agency) http://www.bapa.gov.lv/ 
 BfS || Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (Germany) http://www.bfs.de/ 
 BLG || Brennelementlager (Gorleben) 
 BMU || Das Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (Germany) http://www.bmu.de/ 
 BNFL || British Nuclear Fuels Limited (now BNF plc) http://www.bnfl.com/ 
 BWR || boiling water reactor 
 BZA || Brennelement-Zwischenlager (Ahaus) 
 CANDU || Canadian Deuterium Uranium (Canadian heavy water reactor design) 
 CEA || Commissariat à l’énergie atomique (France) http://www.cea.fr/ 
 CILVA || Centrale infrastructuur voor de verwerking van laagactief vast afval (Belgium) 
 CLAB || Centralt Lager för Använt Kärnbränsle (Swedish interim storage facility for spent fuel) 
 CNCAN || Comisia Nationalã pentru Controlul Activitãtilor Nucleare (National Commission for Nuclear Activities Control - Romanian nuclear safety authority) 
 COGEMA || Compagnie Générale des Matières Nucléaires http://www.cogema.com/ 
 COVRA || Centrale Organisatie voor Radioactief Afval (Dutch Central Organization for Radioactive waste) http://www.covra.nl/ 
 CSN || Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear (Spain) http://www.csn.es/ 
 DBE || Deutsche Gesellschaft zum Bau und Betrieb von Endlagern für Abfallstoffe mbH (Germany) http://www.dbe.de/ 
 DD || Danish Decommissioning http://www.ddcom.dk/ 
 DEFRA || Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (UK) http://www.defra.gov.uk 
 DFR || demonstration fast reactor 
 DG || Directorate-General (of the European Commission) 
 DG-RTD || Directorate-General for Research and Technological Development (European Commission) http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/energy/index_en.html 
 DGSNR || Direction générale de la sûreté nucléaire et de la radioprotection (France) http://asn.gouv.fr/ 
 DPRSN || Department of Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (Portugal) http://www.itn.pt/sec/prsn/uk_dprsn_pse.htm 
 EA || Environment Agency (UK) http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/ 
 ENEA || Ente per le Nuove Tecnologie, l’Energia e l’Ambiente (Italy) http://www.enea.it/ 
 ENEL || Ente Nazionale per l’Energia Elettrica (Italy) http://www.enel.it/ 
 ENRESA || Empresa Nacional de Residuos Radiactivos SA (Spanish WMO) http://www.enresa.es/ 
 ERPC || Estonian Radiation Protection Centre http://www.envir.ee/kiirgus/index.php 
 EURIDICE || European Underground Research infrastructure for disposal of radioactive waste in a Clay Environment http://www.euridice.be/ 
 FANC / AFCN || Federaal Agentschap voor Nucleaire Controle / L’Agence fédérale de Contrôle nucléaire (Belgium) http://www.fanc.fgov.be/newfanc/default.htm 
 GAEC || Greek Atomic Energy Commission 
 GWe || Gigawatt electrical (unit of electrical power) 
 HABOG || Hoogradioactief Afval Behandelings- en Opslag Gebouw (Netherlands) 
 HADES || High Activity Disposal Experimental Site (situated on SCK-CEN site at Mol, Belgium) 
 HAEA || Hungarian Atomic Energy Authority http://www.haea.gov.hu/ 
 HEU || High Enriched Uranium 
 HLW || high-level waste 
 HRL || Hard Rock Laboratory (Äspö, Sweden) 
 HSE || Health and Safety Executive (UK) http://www.hse.gov.uk/ 
 IAEA || International Atomic Energy Agency http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/ and in particular http://www.iaea.org/databases/dbdir/db97.htm 
 IFIN-HH || Institutul National de Fizica si Inginerie Nucleara- "Horia Hulubei" (Romania) http://venus.nipne.ro/maggi/ifin-hh.php 
 INRNE || Institute of Nuclear Research and Nuclear Engineering of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences http://www.inrne.bas.bg/ 
 JAVYS || Jadrová a vyraďovacia společnost (Slovakian Nuclear Decommissioning Company) http://www.javys.sk 
 KFD || Kernfysische Dienst (Dutch regulator within Ministry of Environment) 
 LILW || low- and intermediate-level waste (-SL short-lived, -LL long-lived) 
 LWR || light-water reactor (i.e. PWR and / or BWR) 
 m3 || cubic metre 
 Magnox || graphite moderated gas-cooled reactor (from magnesium oxide cladding) 
 MACSTOR || Modular Air Cooled Storage 
 MITYC || Ministerio de Industria Turismo y Comercio (Spain) http://www.mineco.es/ 
 MOX || mixed oxide (fuel) 
 MS || Member States (of the European Union) 
 NAEA || National Atomic Energy Agency (see PAA) 
 NDA || Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (UK) http://www.nda.gov.uk/ 
 NEA || Nuclear Energy Agency (of OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) http://www.nea.fr/ and in particular http://www.nea.fr/html/rwm/rf/welcome.html 
 NES || Nuclear Engineering Seibersdorf GmbH (Austria) http://www.nuclear-engineering.at/ 
 NII || Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (part of HSE) http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/index.htm 
 NORM || Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material 
 NPP || nuclear power plant 
 NRA || Nuclear Regulatory Agency (Bulgaria) http://www.bnra.bg/ 
 NCSR Demokritos || National Centre of Scientific Research "Demokritos" (Greece) 
 OKG || Oskarshamnskraftgrupp AB (Swedish NPP Company) http://www.okg.se/ 
 ONDRAF / NIRAS || Organisme National des Déchets Radioactifs et des Matières Fissiles / Nationale Instelling voor het Beheer van Radioactief Afval en Splijtstoffen (Belgium WMO) http://www.nirond.be/ 
 P & T || partitioning and transmutation 
 PAA || Państwowa Agencja Atomistyki (Poland) http://www.paa.gov.pl/ 
 PFR || prototype fast reactor 
 POSIVA || (Finnish WMO) http://www.posiva.fi/ 
 PRACLAY || Preliminary demonstration test for Clay disposal of highly radioactive waste 
 PURAM || Public Agency for Radioactive Waste Management (Hungaria) http://www.rhk.hu/index.htm 
 PWR || pressurised water reactor 
 R&D || research and development 
 RATA || Radioaktyviųjų atliekų tvarkymo agentūra (Lithuanian State Enterprise Radioactive Waste Management Agency) http://www.rata.lt/ 
 RAWRA || Radioactive Waste Repository Authority (see SÚRAO) 
 RBMK || (Russian designed graphite moderated pressure tube reactor) 
 RDC /RSC || Radiācijas drošības centrs (Latvian Radiation Safety Centre) http://www.rdc.gov.lv/ 
 RSC || Radiacinės saugos centras / Radiation Protection Centre (Lithuania) http://www.rsc.lt/ 
 RWMP || Radioactive Waste Management Plant (Poland) 
 SCK-CEN || Studiecentrum voor Kernenergie / Centre d’Etudes de l’Energie Nucléaire (Belgium nuclear research centre) http://www.sckcen.be/ 
 SEPA || Scottish Environment Protection Agency http://www.sepa.org.uk/ 
 SERAW || State Enterprise "Radioactive Waste" (Bulgaria) http://www.dprao.bg 
 SE-VYZ o.z. || Slovenské elektrárne, a.s. - Vyraďovanie jadrovoenergetických zariadení, zaobchádzanie s RAO a vyhoreným palivom, o.z. (Slovak WMO) http://www.seas.sk/index.php?id=201 
 SFR || Slutförvaret för radioaktivt driftavfall (Swedish final repository for radioactive waste, Forsmark) 
 SFuDD || spent fuel destined for direct disposal 
 SKB || Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB (Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co) http://www.skb.se/ 
 SKI || Statens Kärnkraftinspektion (Swedish nuclear safety authority) http://www.ski.se/se/ 
 SF || spent fuel 
 SOGIN || Società Gestione Impianti Nucleari (Italian Decommissioning and Waste Management Company) http://www.sogin.it/ 
 SSI || Statens Strålskyddsinstitut (Swedish radiation protection authority) http://www.ssi.se/ 
 SSM || Strålsäkerhetsmyndigheten (Swedish Radiation Safety Authority) http://www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se 
 SSRS || spent sealed radioactive source 
 STUK || Säteilyturvakeskus (Finnish radiation and nuclear safety authority) http://www.stuk.fi/ 
 SÚJB || Státní úřad pro jadernou bezpečnost (Czech nuclear safety authority) http://www.sujb.cz/ 
 SÚRAO || Správa úložišť radioaktivních odpadů (Czech Radioactive Waste Repository Authority ) http://www.surao.cz/ 
 Te HM || tonnes heavy metal (equivalent to tonnes of uranium + plutonium) 
 THTR || Thorium Hochtemperatur-Reaktor (at Hamm-Uentrop in Germany) 
 ÚJD SR || Úrad jadrového dozoru Slovenskej republiky (Nuclear Regulatory Authority of the Slovak Republic) http://www.ujd.gov.sk/ 
 URL || underground research laboratory 
 URSJV || Uprava Republike Slovenije za jedrsko varnost (Slovenian Nuclear Safety Administration) http://www.sigov.si/ursjv/ 
 VATESI || Valstybinė Atominės Energetikos Saugos Inspekcija (Lithuanian nuclear safety authority) http://www.vatesi.lt/ 
 VLJ || Voimalaitosjäte (Finnish – nuclear power plant operational waste) 
 VLLW || very low-level waste 
 VROM || De Raad voor de Volkshuisvesting, de Ruimtelijke Ordening en het Milieubeheer (Netherlands) http://www.vrom.nl/ 
 VVER || Russian designed pressurised water reactor 
 WMO || (radioactive) waste management organisation 
 ZAB || Zwischenlager für abgebrannte Brennstäbe (Greifswald) 
 ZLN || Zentrallager Nord (Greifswald) 
[1]               Council resolution of 18 February 1980 on the
implementation of a Community Plan of Action in the field of radioactive waste
[2]               Council resolution of 15 June 1992 on the renewal of
the Community Plan of Action in the field of radioactive waste
[3]               Special Eurobarometer 297 (2008)
[4]               Fifth Situation Report – Radioactive Waste Management
in the Enlarged European Union, EN 20653 EUR, European Commission, February
2003
[5]               Cyprus and Malta produce only small amounts of
hospital waste and are not considered further in this report
[6]               The reports under the Joint Convention are submitted
in a 3 year term and the deadline for the next ones is 11 October 2008
[7]               Commission Recommendation of 15 September 1999 on a
classification system for solid radioactive waste, 1999/669/EC, Euratom
[8]               COM (93)88 final of 1/4/93 “Third report from the
Commission on the present situation and prospects for radioactive waste
management in the European Communities”
[9]               COM(2007) 794 of 12.12.2007 - Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament and the Council – Second Report on the use of financial resources
earmarked for the decommissioning of nuclear installations, spent fuel and
radioactive waste
[10]             Commission Recommendation of 24 October 2006 on the
management of financial resources for the decommissioning of nuclear
installations, spent fuel and radioactive waste
[11]             http://www-ns.iaea.org/conventions/waste-jointconvention.htm
[12]             Figures were calculated based on extract from IAEA
Priss Data base – June 25, 2008
[13]             Institutional = waste from non-fuel cycle sources but
including waste from operation of research reactors (generally LILW-SL); NPP
operational = low-level waste from day to day activities and operations at NPP
(generally LILW-SL); NORM = waste containing Naturally Occurring Radioactive
Material.
[14]             Surface = surface vaults / trenches + subsequent
capping. RADON is a specific vaulted design developed by the Russian company of
the same name. Mine and rock caverns generally some tens of metres depth. Deep
= >~100 m depth. International moratorium on ocean / sea disposal since
1983.
[15]             It should be noted that HLW arises from the
reprocessing of SF. Production of HLW therefore results in a reduction in SF
stocks. 
[16]             WMO = Waste Management Organisation (refer to Table G)
[17]             WMO = Waste Management Organisation (refer to Table G)
[18]             The Office of the National Chief Medical Officer, as
the licensing authority for radiation protection regulation, also participates
in the nuclear safety licensing procedure.
[19]             Only centralised stores, AFR stores at NPP sites and AR
stores at shutdown reactors are listed. All operating NPPs also have some
capacity for AR wet or dry storage. Some countries also have small stores for
SNF from research reactors or combine the storage of research reactor SNF with
the storage of reprocessing waste (e.g. HABOG in the Netherlands).