Storage and Disposal of Radioactive Waste: The Search for a Global Solution

Odendahl, Kerstin

doi:10.1007/978-94-6265-138-8_9

Kerstin Odendahl³

803 Accesses
3 Citations

Abstract

Questions regarding the safe storage, reprocessing and disposal of radioactive waste continue to occupy scientists, politicians and lawyers alike. Effectively, there are three main types of radioactive waste: low-, intermediate- and high-level radioactive waste. At the end of their useful lifetime, radioactive materials which become radioactive waste are first stored, i.e. secured and shielded for a certain period of time. Afterwards, they have to be disposed of, i.e. indefinitely deposited without the intention of retrieval. The technology for ensuring a safe and secure storage of radioactive waste is well-engineered. Concerning disposal means, satisfactory technologies for low-level and most intermediate-level radioactive waste have been developed. As regards high-level radioactive waste, however, a permanent solution still needs to be found. As it stands today, this third and most dangerous type of radioactive waste is merely stored while the States wait to develop disposal technology to enable more permanent solutions. In order to allow for a solution which takes into account the extreme hazardousness and longevity of high-level radioactive waste, worldwide binding substantial norms on safety and security of both storage and disposal facilities are needed. This chapter analyses whether such international rules currently exist and the extent to which they are precise and sufficiently strict. It seems that the result is rather disillusioning. Therefore, the present chapter ends with some practical and legal proposals.

Professor of Public International Law and European Union law; Director, Walther Schücking Institute for International Law, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic

$34.99 /Month

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime

Buy Now

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 229.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 299.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Management of Radioactive Wastes

Notes

1.
European law as a regional approach is neither presented nor assessed. A good overview is provided above, Chapter 6 (Grunwald) and by Grunwald 2013. See also Stanič 2010, Sievers 2011, para 16 et seq.; Dietze 2012, pp 128–216 (who focuses on the transboundary movement of radioactive waste).
2.
World Nuclear Association 2012; Sievers 2011, para 6.
3.
World Nuclear Association 2012.
4.
The information was taken from http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~dperley/public/isotopetable.html.
5.
Fox 2014, p 187.
6.
Stoiber et al. 2003, p 97.
7.
World Nuclear Association 2012, 2016.
8.
World Nuclear Association 2015.
9.
World Nuclear Association 2012.
10.
IAEA 2006, para 11.
11.
The description is based on IAEA 2006; World Nuclear Association 2012; Keegan 2015, p 1267 et seq.
12.
This is criticised by Keegan 2015, pp 1285 et seq.
13.
Stoiber et al. 2003, p 97. For a description see Fox 2014 p 199 et seq.
14.
Stoiber et al. 2003, p 100.
15.
Stoiber et al. 2003, p 100.
16.
For further details see Wiesner 2014, p 6 as well as Funk 2015.
17.
Mink 1996.
18.
A good example are the political controversies concerning the Yucca Mountain in southern Nevada, see Fox 2014, p 192 et seq.; Keegan 2015, pp 1270 et seq. A recent example concerns the building of a storage facility in Villar de Cañas (Spain). In July 2015, the regional government blocked the construction of the facility just hours after Spain‘s Nuclear Security Council decided positively about the site, see https://www.thespainreport.com/articles/36-150728141206-regional-government-blocks-nuclear-waste-dump-hours-after-spain-s-nuclear-council-approves-it. Another example can be found in Australia where the federal government’s attempts to build a storage facility for low-level radioactive waste failed again in June 2014, see Nagtzaam 2014.
19.
Sievers 2011, paras 1 and 2; Nyman 2002.
20.
A/RES/68/53, 11.12.2013, para 4.
21.
Stoiber et al. 2010, p 91.
22.
A useful website in this respect is https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/radwaste-management.
23.
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, 29 September 1997, UNTS Vol. 2153, p 303.
24.
Wirth 2007, p 417. The Principles of Radioactive Waste Management, Safety Series No. 111-F, IAEA, Vienna (1995).
25.
Convention on Nuclear Safety, 17 June 1994, UNTS Vol. 1963, 293.
26.
Article 2(i).
27.
Article 3 para 1.
28.
Article 3 para 2.
29.
Article 1(ii).
30.
Article 3 para 3. The problems resulting from the lack of norms for this type of waste are analysed by Cohen 2013–2014.
31.
Article 1(i).
32.
Article 1(ii).
33.
Article 4; Article 11.
34.
Article 5; Article 12(i).
35.
Preamble, para xi.
36.
Article 6, para 1 (i); Article 13, para 1 (i).
37.
Article 27; for further details see Dietze 2012, pp 60–68.
38.
Article 7(i), (iii); Article 14(i), (iv).
39.
Article 8(i); Article 15(i).
40.
Articles 22–27.
41.
Article 19, para 1.
42.
Article 19, para 2 (i), (ii), (iv).
43.
Article 10.
44.
Article 30 together with the Guidelines regarding the Review Process, 7.12.2012, INFCIRC/603/Rev. 5.
45.
Preamble, para IX.
46.
The ‘Model Provisions on Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel’ are to be found in Stoiber et al. 2010, p 93–97.
47.
Preamble, para VI.
48.
For more details see Faßbender 2013, p 113.
49.
The differences between Safety Fundamentals, General/Specific Safety Requirements and General/Specific Safety Guides are to explained in IAEA (2016), p 3.
50.
Fundamental Safety Principles, 7.11.2006, Series No. SF-1.
51.
Predisposal Management of Radioactive Waste, General Safety Requirements Part 5,19.5.2009, Series No. GSR Part 5.
52.
Safety Assessment for Facilities and Activities, General Safety Requirements Part 4, 19.5.2009, Series No. GSR Part 4.
53.
Decommissioning of Facilities, General Safety Requirements Part 6, 8.7.2014, Series No. GSR Part 6.
54.
Predisposal Management of High Level Radioactive Waste, Safety Guide, 30.4.2006, Series No. WS-G-2.6.
55.
Storage of Radioactive Waste, Safety Guide, 28.11.2006, Series No. WS-G-6.1.
56.
The Management System for the Processing, Handling and Storage of Radioactive Waste, Safety Guide, 2.7.2008, Series No. GS-G-3.3.
57.
Classification of Radioactive Waste, General Safety Guide, 28.12.2009, Series No. GSG-1.
58.
The Safety Case and Safety Assessment for the Predisposal Management of Radioactive Waste, 18.4.2013, Series No. GSG-3.
59.
Disposal of Radioactive Waste, Specific Safety Requirements, 5.5.2011, Series No. SSR-5.
60.
The Management System for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste, Safety Guide, 1.7.2008, Series No. GS-G-3.4.
61.
Geological Disposal Facilities for Radioactive Waste, Specific Safety Guide, 21.9.2011, Series No. SSG-14.
62.
Monitoring and Surveillance of Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities, Specific Safety Guide, 22.5.2014, Series No. SSG-31.
63.
Pomper 2013, p 1.
64.
The information was gathered from the website of the IAEA.
65.
The latest version was issued 2011: Nuclear Security Recommendations on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and Nuclear Facilities (INFCIRC/225/REVISION 5). IAEA Nuclear Security Series No. 13.
66.
GOV/2002/10.
67.
Board of Governors, General Conference, Nuclear Security Plan 2014–2017, GOV/2013/42-GC(57)/19, 2.8.2013.
68.
IAEA, Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources, January 2004. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Code-2004_web.pdf.
69.
Board of Governors, General Conference, International Conference on Nuclear Security: Enhancing Global Efforts, 1–5 July 2013, GOV/INF/2013/9-GC(57)/INF/6, 5.8.2013.
70.
Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, 26.10.1979, UNTS Vol. 1456, p. 125.
71.
Board of Governors, General Conference, Nuclear Security—Measures to Protect Against Nuclear Terrorism, Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, GOV/INF/2005/10-GC(49)/INF/6, 6.9.2005.
72.
Pursuant to Article 20 of the Amendment it will enter into force after two third of the States Parties have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval. As of 16 December 2015, 91 States had become parties to the Amendment. 102 States Parties are needed.
73.
Amendment, para 5.
74.
Amendment, para 3.
75.
International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, 13.4.2005, UNTS, Vol. 2445, p 89.
76.
Article 3.
77.
Article 5.
78.
Article 2, para 1 (b).
79.
S/RES/1373 (2001), 28.9.2001, para 4.
80.
S/RES/1540 (2004), 28.4.2004, Preamble, para 1.
81.
S/RES/1540 (2004), 28.4.2004, para 3 (a).
82.
S/RES/1540 (2004), 28.4.2004, para 8 (c).
83.
Pelzer 2013, p 149.
84.
Mink 1996; Sievers 2011; Keegan 2015.
85.
Boustany 1998, p 39; Handl 2004, p 26–27.
86.
Fox 2014, p 205 et seq.
87.
Freytag and Pennekamp 2014, p 19.
88.
Lapidos 2009.
89.
Reiners 2014.
90.
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, 22 May 2001. The treaty has got 179 parties.
91.
There are, however, international lawyers who argue that the operation of nuclear power plants violates public international law, inter alia due to the highly-radioactive waste they produce, see Weeramantry 2011, p 15.

References

Boustany K (1998) The development of nuclear law-making or the art of legal “evasion”. Nuclear Law Bull 61:39–53
Google Scholar
Cohen JA (2013–2014) What to Do With America’s Nuclear Defense Waste: The Hanford Effect. Kentucky J Equine Agric Nat Resour Law 6:1–22
Google Scholar
Dietze W (2012) Internationale Endlagerung radioaktiver Abfälle. Eine völker- und europarechtliche Untersuchung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der regionalen Endlagerung in Europa. Cuvillier Verlag, Göttingen
Google Scholar
Faßbender K (2013) Atomkraftwerke aus umweltvölker- und nachbarrechtlicher Sicht. In: Odendahl K (ed) Internationales und europäisches Atomrecht, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 109–131
Google Scholar
Fox MH (2014) Why we need nuclear power. The environmental case. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Freytag B, Pennekamp J (2014) Alles muss raus. Deutschland steht das größte Abrissprogramm seiner Geschichte bevor: Auf den Atomaausstieg folgt der Rückbau der Reaktoren. Am Neckar ist schon zu besichtigen, was im ganzen Land noch kommen wird. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 2 August 2014, p 19
Google Scholar
Funk P (2015) Finnland genehmigt weltweit erstes Endlager für Atommüll, 17 November 2015. http://www.ingenieur.de/Politik-Wirtschaft/Energie-Umweltpolitik/Finnland-genehmigt-weltweit-erstes-Endlager-fuer-Atommuell
Grunwald J (2013) Europarechtliche Vorgaben zur friedlichen Nutzung der Atomenergie: Euratom und EU-Normen. In: Odendahl K (ed) Internationales und europäisches Atomrecht, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 185–220
Google Scholar
Handl G (2004) The IAEA Nuclear Safety Conventions: an example of successful “treaty management”? Nuclear Law Bull 72:7–27
Google Scholar
IAEA (2006) Storage and disposal of spent fuel and high level radioactive waste. https://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC50/GC50InfDocuments/English/gc50inf-3-att5_en.pdf
IAEA (2016) Long term structure of the IAEA safety standards and current status, February 2016. http://www-ns.iaea.org/committees/files/CSS/205/status.pdf
Keegan CM (2015) What’s worse, nuclear waste or the United States’ failed policy for its disposal? Univ Richmond Law Rev 49:1265–1292
Google Scholar
Lapidos J (2009) Atomic Priesthoods, Thorn Landscapes, and Munchian Pictograms. How to communicate the dangers of nuclear waste to future civilizations. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/green_room/2009/11/atomic_priesthoods_thorn_landscapes_and_munchian_pictograms.html
Mink PT (1996) Nuclear waste: the most compelling environmental issue facing the world today. Fordham Environ Law J 8:165–170
Google Scholar
Nagtzaam G (2014) Pass the Parcel. Australia and the vexing issue of a federal nuclear waste repository. Altern Law J 39(246):248
Google Scholar
Nyman J (2002) The dirtiness of the Cold War: Russia’s nuclear waste in the arctic. Environ Policy Law 32:47–52
Google Scholar
Pelzer N (2013) Internationale Zusammenarbeit bei Atomkatastrophen: Die Lehren aus Tschernobyl und Fukushima. In: Odendahl K (ed) Internationales und europäisches Atomrecht, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 133–165
Google Scholar
Pomper MA (2013) Topic: IAEA and Nuclear Security. Fact Sheet #4. Information Relevant to the IAEA General Conference
Google Scholar
Reiners P (2014) Underground nuclear repositories and international civil liability: the time factor. J Risk Res 17:133–143. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13669877.2013.841740
Sievers B (2011) Nuclear waste disposal (last updated May 2011). In: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law
Google Scholar
Stanič A (2010) EU law on nuclear safety. J Energy Nat Resour Law 28:145–158
Article Google Scholar
Stoiber C, Baer A, Pelzer N, Tonhauser W (2003) Handbook on nuclear law. IAEA, Vienna
Google Scholar
Stoiber C, Cherf A, Tonhauser W, Vez Carmona M (2010) Handbook on nuclear law. Implementing legislation. IAEA, Vienna
Google Scholar
Weeramantry CG (2011) Nukleare Reaktorkatastrophe in Japan. Ein offener Brief an die Umweltminister aller Staaten. IALANA Rundbrief 1:14–16. http://ialana.de/files/pdf/verőffertlichunfen/offener_Brief_vonC__weeamantry_Tukushima.pdf
Wiesner M (2014) Bis zur nächsten Eiszeit. Finnland errichtet das erste Endlager für radioaktive Abfälle. Die Einwohner der Gemeide Eurajoki haben nichts dagegen – sie freuen sich sogar über den Bau. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 22 April 2014, p 6
Google Scholar
Wirth DA (2007) Hazardous substances and activities. In: Bodansky D, Brunnée J, Hey E (eds) The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 394–422
Google Scholar
World Nuclear Association (2012) Waste management: overview (updated December 2012). http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Waste-Management-Overview/
World Nuclear Association (2015) Plans for new reactors worldwide (updated October 2015). http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide/
World Nuclear Association (2016) Storage and disposal options (updated January 2016). http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/appendices/radioactive-waste-management-appendix-2-storage-an.aspx

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

University of Kiel, Westring 400, 24118, Kiel, Germany
Kerstin Odendahl

Authors

Kerstin Odendahl
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kerstin Odendahl .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Jonathan L. Black-Branch
Cologne, Germany
Dieter Fleck

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Odendahl, K. (2016). Storage and Disposal of Radioactive Waste: The Search for a Global Solution. In: Black-Branch, J., Fleck, D. (eds) Nuclear Non-Proliferation in International Law - Volume III. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-138-8_9

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-138-8_9
Published: 16 November 2016
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-137-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-138-8
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

TMC Asser Press (opens in a new tab)

Storage and Disposal of Radioactive Waste: The Search for a Global Solution

Abstract

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Buy Now