Cost-related implications of retrieval: Who should pay? Who should assess the cost/benefit?

This paper contains an analysis of three different cases when a retrieval operation could take place. For each of the cases, the analysis covers three conceivable reasons for the retrieval. This means a total of nine scenarios to be analysed. One requirement for the analysis should be observed. That requirement is that there is, in a country, a system where assets are set aside today to cover such costs in the future which are caused by the current production of nuclear power. Within this framework, the analysis focuses on the financial implications of costs in connection with retrieval. (Consequences on the total national economy of such a financing system and of a retrieval operation are not discussed.) A financing system along these lines is consistent with two generally acknowledged principles: the polluter pays principle and the principle of not imposing undue burdens on future generations. But how are these principles applicable if, in the future, spent nuclear fuel were to be retrieved? Different time-horizons for a retrieval operation might produce different answers and these answers might also differ depending on the reasons for retrieval. The three chosen approximate times for retrieval are retrieval after a 10 year demonstration period (case 1), retrieval after the repository has ended its operating period but before final sealing has been carried out (case 2) and retrieval after about 50 years from sealing (case 3). The three reasons, which could be relevant in all three cases, can briefly be summarised as ''the solution is not safe enough'', ''the solution is safe enough but a better method than the chosen one has been developed and should be applied'' and ''what was considered as nuclear waste when disposed of now represents an economic asset which should be used by man''. (author)