Construction of the 1 st Phase of Spent Fuel Repository in Finland: Lessons Learned and Success Factors

1. Construction of the 1st Phase of Spent Fuel Repository in Finland: Lessons Learned and Success Factors T. Varjoranta, R. Paltemaa STUK, Finland

2. Nuclear Finland • Olkiluoto NPP (TVO) • 2 operating units - ABB BWRs 860MWe (-78, -80), AFR storage, LILW repository, SNF Repository site with “Onkalo” under construction • New EPR under construction • Government accepted a new NPP license application • Loviisa NPP (Fortum) • 2 operating units - VVERs 488MWe (-77, -81) AFR storage, LILW repository • Fennovoima Ltd • Government accepted a new NPP license application Tero Varjoranta

3. Tero Varjoranta

4. Status after 30 years´ work Tero Varjoranta

5. Main principles used when developing regulations and implementation • Finnish Parliament: We must take care of our nuclear waste • We must not leave nuclear waste as a burden to future generations • Use of today’s proven and robust technology and defence-in-depth principles • Being transparent, open and competent, international cooperation, but able to manage our nuclear waste without foreign support • Passively safe repository system, natural and technical barriers, no reliance on long-term surveillance • Retrievable, but safe and protective • No unjustified delays in the implementation process • Long time frames manageable in old and stable Finnish bedrock • Joint Convention and IAEA’s safety standards Tero Varjoranta

6. Success factor 1: Long term political commitment to resolve the nuclear waste issue • Governments’ strategic Decisions since 1983 • Only safe can be built, safety can not be compromised by other requirements or demands • Three step licensing • Decision-in-Principle: Public and political acceptance, local veto-right • Construction license and Operating license: Safety technical issues Tero Varjoranta

7. Lessons learned and success factors Success factor 2: National strategy and discipline • Major milestones and timelines set in Governments’ decisions • Over the years, regular regulatory reviews • Nuclear power companies invest sufficient resources to meet the Governments’ decisions • Site selection, characterization and confirmation, technologies, safety assessments and safety case Success factor 3: Well defined liabilities and roles • 3 step licensing process (decision in principle, construction license and operating license) • Responsibility of the waste producer, “Polluter pays” • Licensing: Local municipality - Government - Parliament • Regulatory control: STUK for safety, security and safeguards • Technical support organizations Tero Varjoranta

8. Lessons learned and success factors Success factor 4: Early on established funding system • Detailed regulations specifies the financing system and the State Nuclear Waste Management Fund • The “polluter pays” principal, which includes all costs (also R&D and regulatory costs) • Generators of nuclear waste are annually obliged to present justified estimates of the future cost of managing their existing waste including spent fuel disposal and decommissioning of NPPs • The Ministry of Employment and the Economy confirms the assessed liability and the proportion of liability to be paid into the Nuclear Waste Management Fund (fund target) • The waste generators pay annually the difference of fund target and the amount already existing in the Fund • The current estimates: about 1900 million Euros with no discounting Tero Varjoranta

9. Lessons learned and success factors Success factor 5: Regarding hosting the repository, veto-right for the local community in the 1st step of the licensing process • The Nuclear Energy Law states “Before making the decision-in-principle, the Government shall ascertain that the municipality where the nuclear facility is planned to be located in its statement is in favour of the facility” • Local municipality has been able to study and review all aspects (financial, socio-political, technological, safety etc.) without risk that Government, or even Parliament, is able to force the municipality to host the repository against their will Tero Varjoranta

10. Lessons learned and success factors Success factor 6: Regulator’s strategic planning to allow development of regulatory approach parallel with R&D and in analogy with nuclear plant safety regulations Tero Varjoranta

11. Lessons learned and success factors (Success factor 6, cont) The radiation protection criteria: • Operational period (about 150 years): dose-based criteria • practically no releases from normal operation • 0,1 mSv/a for anticipated transients • 1 mSv/a for postulated accidents with probability > 10-3/a • 5 mSv/a for postulated accidents with probability < 10-3/a. • Reasonably predictable future (from closure of the repository several thousands of years): dosed-based criteria to members of hypothetical critical groups due to “early failure” scenarios • Highest individual doses from expected evolution scenarios < 0,1 mSv/a • Insignificant average doses to larger population groups • Era of extreme climate changes (hundreds of thousand of years): Radiation protection criteria are based on release rates of radionuclides from the geosphere (geo-bio flux constraints). • Maximum impacts must be comparable to those arising from natural radionuclides, and large-scale impacts must be insignificant. • Farthest future (million years and beyond): demonstration of safety can be based on simplified bounding analyses, comparisons with natural analogues, and observations of the geological history of the site • The hazard posed by the repository is comparable to that from a uranium ore deposit. No rigorous quantitative safety assessments are required. Tero Varjoranta

12. Lessons learned and success factors Success factor 7: Well structured, stepwise, open and defendable implementation program using graded approach and “rolling documents” strategy Tero Varjoranta

13. Lessons learned and success factors Example of the strategy of ”rolling documents” Tero Varjoranta

14. Lessons learned and success factors Success factor 8: Good safety culture and importance of dialogue between the regulator and the implementer based on comparable levels of technical competence Success factor 9: Transparency and engagement of public and domestic and international scientific and technical communities • Public: • Focus on local level • Based on the needs of the local public and decision makers • Scientific and technical communities • Open and transparent programme • Peer Reviews • Foreign expert groups (policy and strategy, site, technologies, safety assessment) Tero Varjoranta

15. What happens next in licensing? • 2000/2001 Decision in Principle: the Finnish Society accepted the Olkiluoto Repository • 2.-6.11.2009 “EU-27 Peer Review to STUK” • 2012 Construction License submittal • Authorization to construct deposition tunnels, deposition holes and other underground facilities • Authorization to construct encapsulation plant& EBS components • No nuclear waste to be introduced into repository • Pre-license application (“maturity test”) was submitted 2009 • 2020 Operating License submittal • Introduction of nuclear waste into encapsulation and repository • Fixed period with full safety review at 15 y intervals (or as specified in license) Tero Varjoranta

16. Conclusions • In Finland, the spent fuel final disposal project has progress over 30 years in a systematic manner consistent with the national strategy, legislation and regulations • For disposing the existing spent fuel, public acceptance in Local, Governmental and Parliament levels has been gained and sealed in legal process 2001 • Nine success factors have been identified, the most important one being “Long term political commitment to resolve the nuclear waste issue”. • As of today, in light of complying with the Finnish safety, security and safeguards regulations, work remains but there are no indications which would suggest that the repository couldn’t be • built to comply with the regulations • apply for operating license round 2020 Tero Varjoranta