Case studies: Experience of countries with small nuclear programmes [Factors affecting public and political acceptance for the implementation of geological disposal]

Many countries with limited number of nuclear power reactors have developed plans for management of their radioactive waste but have some common difficulties to implement some stages of each national plan. Examples of such countries are Lithuania, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Argentina. Management of radioactive waste in these countries must address considerations that are not usually present in countries with large nuclear programmes. Because of the small quantities of waste involved, the unit cost of disposing the waste is considerably higher. Simultaneously, these programmes have limited financial resources and very often limited human resources. These factors strongly constrain the development of waste management programmes, especially geological disposal programme. These countries tackle the challenges they confront in different ways, but some common features may be outlined. In most cases these programmes started later than countries with more advanced nuclear power programmes. Therefore the need for geological disposal appeared later. This suggests that some countries, like Hungary, Bulgaria, Argentina or Lithuania, have chosen to postpone a decision on long-term spent fuel management. Other countries, such as Slovenia and Romania, have taken strategic decisions on geological disposal but have kept open other options such as the development of multinational repository or the export of spent fuel. The legislative framework in these countries is mostly set and responsibilities of the different institutions defined. Most countries have already established the waste management organisations, responsible for the development and implementation of the disposal programmes. Radioactive waste management organisations were established in Slovenia (ARAO, 1991), Hungary (PURAM, 1998), Lithuania (RATA, 2001), Romania (ANDRAD, 2004), Bulgaria (SERAW, 2004) and Argentina (PNGRR Programa Nacional de Gestion de Residuos Radioactivos), within National Atomic Energy Commission, 2003). In the context of countries with small nuclear programmes, it is clearly premature to reach conclusions about how the different factors discussed below have affected public and political acceptance. Technical factor, structural factor, and process factor are discussed. Given the small quantities of radioactive waste arisen in these countries, it may be even more difficult to convincingly present the need for a national disposal programme. Consequently, time schedules for their implementation are shifted far into the future. This allows relatively open and transparent discussion of the programme without time pressure. On the other hand, time distant plans raise less public interest and attention and it is more difficult to achieve two-way communication and get insight into the public's perception of the proposed solutions. For implementers, the long planning horizon presents an additional challenge. Their responsibilities extend over a time period of more than one generation with relatively low engagements in the current generation. Under such conditions, developing and maintaining the necessary expertise can be quite difficult as is the transfer of knowledge between generations