Marit Stokkeland Asklien and Peter Bennett (back right) discuss deep landfill solutions with international experts. Photo: Jan Johannessen/NND
Finland has built a deep-water landfill for nuclear waste. Why can't we just copy that solution?
When Norway decommissions the historic Norwegian nuclear facilities, we will have to build new nuclear plants to handle the waste. One of the facilities is deep landfill for the radioactive waste.
“We are entitled to find the best solution,” says Peter Bennett of NND. Together with his colleague Marit Stokkeland Asklien, he is responsible for investigating which concept Norway should choose for the disposal of Norway's historic radioactive waste.
“Then we can't just copy another country's solution since we don't know if it's the best solution for the Norwegian radioactive waste,” he further explains.
The Finns have nuclear reactors for energy production. Norway has had reactors for research. The Norwegian high-efficiency waste, the spent fuel, is more complex to manage.
EXPERT GROUP
At Fredriksten Fortress, a group of international experts sit around the conference table. They have come to Halden to continue their efforts to find the best solution for the disposal of Norway's historic nuclear waste. Finding the best solution really involves finding more solutions.
“If you treat all radioactive waste equally, you must use the method required by the most hazardous waste,” Asklien says.
“The landfill would be unnecessarily expensive when other waste does not need as comprehensive solutions as the most active waste to be safely disposed of,” Asklien continues.
The most demanding waste is 16.5 tonnes of spent fuel from the research reactors. This is the high-yield waste. In addition, there are radioactive wastes that require simpler solutions than the spent fuel.
In total, it is expected that the decommissioning of the Norwegian historic nuclear facilities will create 5,000 tons of radioactive waste. The spent fuel accounts for only 0.33% of this.
NEW WASTE
In addition to the radioactive waste from the decommissioning of the historic nuclear facilities, NND will also deal with upcoming wastes from health care, industry and defence. It makes it necessary to keep the facilities open for many years after the decommissioning waste is in place. The plant must be able to withstand being open for a hundred years.
FOR AND AGAINST
It's surprisingly analogous in the conference room. Not even the participants' mobile phones seem. The digital dupes have been put away, No distractions. Full concentration on the task. Only one PC is turned on.
A large excel sheet is projected onto the wall. Here are the combinations listed. Scroll after scroll reveals the scope. Each concept and combination of different solutions for the waste is considered and discussed.
A number of aspects are highlighted. It discusses the climate impacts, what risks exist during construction, and during operation. Transportation of the waste, the relationship with neighbors of the plant and a whole host of other aspects of the waste landfill are discussed.
Every stone is turned, and turned again. It is therefore important that there is a consensus on the terms used. Everyone must understand what is in the document equally.
Time is spent on the formulations so that they are precise and do not allow for misunderstandings. It ensures that even external readers of the document will perceive the content as intended when it is entered.
ONLY ONE SAFE SOLUTION?
The group's main mandate is to arrive at the right solution. The solution that NND will prefer. Before the solution is recommended to the government, it will go through a review by new experts.
“You can come up with several safe solutions, but the safety margins on one solution are greater than on the other,” says Finnish Hella Pirjo.
“There are many good solutions,” she concludes.
