Prior to 2008, the united political system of the state management of RAW had to manage not only its basic role of developing state policy in the field of providing nuclear and radiation safety, but also a new and crucial func­tion of solving the broader problems of the entire nuclear system (both historical and contemporary).

In 2008, a presidential decree (‘On the Measures for the Creation of the ‘Rosatom’ State Corporation for Atomic Energy’) determined that Radon, the enterprise with special responsibility for collection, storage and process­ing of RAW across Russia should be transferred to Rosatom. The reorgani­zation of these enterprises on the basis of their relationship to the FSUE ‘RosRAO’ is now complete.

RosRAO was given the responsibility for managing the centralized collection and sorting of low and intermediate-level RAW, as well as their transport, conditioning and storage. The scope of the enterprise includes activities aimed at planning RAW volumes, developing technologies for RAW processing, designing and building units for final isolation, operating storage facilities, and remediating and monitoring, territories that were subjected to radioactive contamination. The law ‘About the management of radioactive wastes management’ gave RosRAO the functions of the national operator, and it now manages all the work and projects connected with solving the problems of accumulated RAW and other historical problems across the whole of the former USSR.

The Kirovo-Chepetsk Chemical Enterprise has been producing uranium fluorides since 1958. The area of contaminated facilities includes more than 100,000 m3 of buildings and sludge repositories containing RAW with an activity of more than 3,000 Ci. The most basic form of decommis­sioning, preservation, has been carried out here: i. e., accumulated RAW remains on the territory of the Kirovo-Chepetsk department of FSUE ‘RosRAO’. The preparation of the site for decommissioning requires the development of a decommissioning plan, the completion of scientific research, and the carrying out of crucial measures to guarantee safety. Full decommissioning will solve the problem of the existing RAW storage facili­ties, will remove contaminated buildings, and will create a new RAW storage site [35].

The remediation of sludge stores at the concentration unit of the former Novotroitsk mining plant constitutes another similar problem. The contami­nated area there is more than 9 hectares in size, with over 200,000 m3 of RAW (principally composed of 232Th with 20 Ci of activity). The purpose of recent work relating to this site includes the preparation of technical and up-to-date documentation to allow remediation of the contaminated site and the transfer of both the technological equipment and RAW in an eco­logically safe state. The average specific activity of the 232Th in the RAW at this site is 72 Bq/kg, 226Ra — 26 Bq/kg, 40K — 1100 Bq/kg. In the evaluation of the physical volumes and total activity of RAW, only the anomalies and the sites with known radioactive contamination were examined. The specific activity of 232Th is equal to 780 Bq/kg, which exceeds the levels judged to be minimally significant. Activities at this level are encountered in areas with irradiation fields of above 1.0 pSv/hour.

The results taken in the contaminated territory during the 2009 investiga­tion [36] identified 18 anomalies with an average specific activity 2,800 Bq/ kg. The total volume of the contaminated constructions due to be disman­tled was about 1,500 m3.

10.6 Conclusion

This chapter presents the author’s perspective on the principal aspects of RAW management in Russia. The problems connected with special features of radioactive waste accumulation in the former USSR were examined, with the Eastern Ural Track used as an example of the ecological threat posed by mistakes made during RAW processing.

A number of issues connected with the formation of the institutional RAW management system in the former USSR are discussed, including the establishment of the Radon system, the long-term isolation strategy, the different sorts of historical repository, and the restoration process for those repositories. The procedure for converting historical repositories into new long-term RAW storage repositories is also outlined.

A survey of contemporary technologies used in RAW management was carried out, including combined liquid RAW treatment, vitrification and plasma treatment. A large part of the chapter is dedicated to RAW cementa­tion technology as the basic industrial method of low — and intermediate-level LRAW conditioning. This technology requires low capital investment and operational expenditures and satisfies the quality requirements of the Russian Standard. The creation of the state system of RAW and RAM accounting and control is discussed in detail, along with broad coverage of questions concern­ing the legal aspects of RAW management in Russia. Moreover, the key ele­ments of the new federal law ‘On the Management of Radioactive Waste’ are presented, with particular reference to aspects affecting the construction and development of contemporary RAW management system.

A brief overview of territorial radiation monitoring and achievements in analytical control was provided. It should be noted that a multilevel system of radiation monitoring was organized in Moscow immediately after the events at Chernobyl NPP. The enormous volume of work on environmental radioactivity led to the development of analytical techniques such as the use of the liquid scintillation spectrometry method. The final part of the chapter focused on questions connected with the problem of the remedia­tion of territories contaminated with radionuclides.

This chapter has therefore demonstrated that Russia possesses the com­plete spectrum of activities and systems connected with the management of RAW, including treatment of spent fuel, nuclear fuel cycle, decommis­sioning liabilities and durable long-term storage of conditioned RAW.

Options for disposal are indicated in Fig. 1.20 and depend to large extent on the content and half-life of radionuclides in the waste. Small contents and short-lived wastes may be suitable for near surface disposal (IAEA, 2002), while larger contents and long-lived radionuclides require deep or

HLW waste package PWR SF waste package AGR SF waste package

1.18 MPC options under development for UK SF.

1.19 Yellow boxes for storing ILW.

very deep disposal, relying on the geosphere to keep the radioactive species from the biosphere (IAEA, 2003a; Ahn and Apted, 2010). As for the storage concepts described above, most geological approaches use a multi-barrier system to improve the safety of disposal where the waste form, container, near field environment (e. g., engineered barrier system, EBS) and far field environment (host rock) are all important in retaining radionuclides in the geosphere.

There are two principal steps in RAW processing: treatment and condition­ing. The main role of treatment is to change the characteristics of the waste or to reduce the volume to make waste suitable for final processing by conditioning. The main role of conditioning is to incorporate or encapsulate the waste into the waste matrix, and/or package the waste in a container, where the container functions as an efficient and safe barrier for isolation of the waste from the environment. The distinction between treatment and conditioning is sometimes not clear — depending on the national waste management policy and approach, some kinds of treated waste can be considered as suitable for disposal and in other cases can be considered as needing further processing. This decision also depends, of course, on whether an ultimate disposal option is available or expected. More safe, advanced and sophisticated disposal options can potentially lower the requirements for the conditioning procedure, for example if deep geological disposal of low and intermediate level waste is considered, packaging of the waste into special containers can be acceptable instead of solidification into an encap­sulation matrix.

In some cases pre-treatment of RAW is applied to modify ‘as generated’ waste into the form suitable for further treatment. A typical example is adjustment of the chemical properties (e. g., adjustment of acidity, or destruc­tion of organic compounds in the waste) of liquid waste. Segregation of solid waste is also often considered as pre-treatment procedure.

In addition to the above-mentioned classification of RAW based on its properties, technologists often use their own ‘technological classification’ of the waste. It is based on waste stream characteristics in combination with available technologies for their processing. Sometimes, a technological clas­sification allows ‘as generated’ waste streams to be merged according to typical waste characteristics and this provides for more efficient processing. A technological classification of waste is very individual, specific almost for each type of nuclear facility. However, any technological classification should obey the basic rule — to be consonant with waste package specifica­tions and WAC.

Considering the types, properties and volume of generated waste and taking into account the available waste processing technologies, waste processing organizations should prepare complex waste management plans to assure management that all kinds of waste and all waste streams are handled in a safe and sound manner with one goal — to produce waste pack­ages acceptable for ultimate disposal or long-term storage, i. e. compliant with WAC for disposal or long-term storage.

The main decision-making parameters in waste processing technology selection are activity concentration and aggregate state. With regard to aggregate state, two principal categories of RAW are generated at nuclear facilities: liquid waste and solid waste. While the composition (chemical and radiochemical) and properties of liquid waste depends more on the type of reactor, the composition and properties of solid wastes do not depend sub­stantially on the reactor type. Both primary waste streams are pre-treated and treated directly at the generator’s site and the volume of treated liquid waste is usually lower than the volume of solid waste. Another, smaller volume, waste category is spent ion exchange resins and other filtration materials, sometimes admixed with radioactive sludge and/or sediments from liquid waste storage tanks. These resin, filtration materials and sludge/ sediments are much more difficult to process. However, they are sometimes considered in the liquid waste category because of the high content of water and slurry. In some countries they are declared as a separate ‘wet waste’ category.

The principal scheme of aqueous liquid radioactive waste management is presented in Fig. 2.1, taken from Ref. [12]. Various types of aqueous liquid RAW are generated at various nuclear facilities. However, the processes by which they are managed is very uniform. Low and intermediate level waste streams are processed in three basic steps:

1. Pre-treatment (if necessary) is applied to adjust the waste properties according to its expected treatment and conditioning. In practice, adjust­ment of acidity is most commonly used.

2. Treatment is applied to reduce the volume of ‘as generated’ waste for further conditioning. There are two principal approaches: more com­monly concentration of primary waste usually by evaporation and less commonly separation of radionuclide contamination either by ion exchange or advanced ultrafiltration techniques. In the first case, the treatment results in a relatively small volume of waste concentrate with high salinity. In the second case, radionuclides are concentrated in a special ion exchange column or in the filtration material. In both cases, liquid concentrate, or spent filtration materials and filters are further addressed for final conditioning. Bulk condensate from evaporation or filtrate from ion exchange or filtration procedure can be, after proper control, reused or even cleared for discharge.

3.

Conditioning of liquid waste concentrates is the process of their incor­poration into a selected matrix. The resulting waste form is loaded into a proper container. Cement and bitumen are commonly used matrices; polymer, geopolymer and some other matrices are less frequently encountered. Recently, also cold crucible vitrification has been consid­ered for concentrate conditioning, resulting in an excellent waste form. Selection of the container usually depends on the waste form properties, the national waste management policy, the selected disposal option and the waste acceptance requirements.

The principal scheme of solid RAW management is presented in Fig. 2.2, taken from Ref. [12]. The composition and properties of ‘as generated’ solid radioactive waste are substantially more variable than liquid waste. There­fore also the technologies used for processing solid waste are more variable and should be tailored according to the individual requirements and expec­tations of the waste generator. Similar to liquid waste, low and intermediate level solid waste streams are processed in three basic steps:

1. Pre-treatment comprises mostly sorting and segregation of the waste according to waste characteristics and the expected processing

technologies. An extremely important feature of the pre-treatment step is a chance to segregate non-active waste from the bulk waste and con­tribute in this way to the minimization of waste generation. The poten­tial for reduction of solid waste generation is considerably higher than that of liquid waste. Given the present state of technology, the best results in volume minimization can be achieved with a combination of thermal treatment (pyrolysis) and compaction technology. Therefore, the most common approach is to segregate the waste into combustible and non-combustible categories and the non-combustible category is further segregated into compactable and non-compactable waste. Metal­lic waste represents a special category of solid waste and its processing is a separate issue. Decontamination is often used as a pre-treatment or treatment procedure in this case.

2. Treatment steps are applied to reduce the waste volume. Combustible waste can be thermally treated by pyrolysis with follow-up conditioning of ash by incorporation into a matrix or by supercompaction. In some countries there are objections to the application of the high temperature thermal treatment resulting in generation of exhaust gases. In this case, compaction or medium temperature thermal destruction in the absence
of air (steam reforming) are the only applicable options for volume reduction of solid waste. However, steam reforming is still not com­monly used in RAW management. There are two principal options for compaction of the radioactive waste: low pressure in drum compaction and, more favourable for operational waste, high pressure compaction (supercompaction), when the whole drum filled with waste is com­pacted. Pellets are obtained in this conditioning step and can be placed into a container and/or encapsulated in a proper matrix.

3. Conditioning of solid waste is in principle immobilization of treated waste into a proper matrix, most commonly cement grout. Ash from a high temperature thermal treatment facility is either directly cemented in a container, or first compacted and the pellets from the compactor are encapsulated (grout or another matrix) into a proper container. Non-compactable waste is adjusted and sorted by size and usually encapsulated (e. g., grouted) in a proper container. In some cases, non — compactable waste is packed into drums and the filled drums are then loaded into special containers (e. g., reinforced concrete containers) and the void space is filled with cement grout. In all the above-mentioned cases, cement grout can be prepared with liquid radioactive waste to provide better utilization of container space.

Each waste processing technology uses specific types of containers for accommodation of waste forms. The most common container worldwide is the standard 200 L metallic drum, made from various types of steel (in general carbon steel and/or stainless steel) with consideration of various corrosion protection measures. Waste packages made of 200 L drums are commonly accepted for final disposal. However, in some countries there is a requirement to place 200 L drums with conditioned waste into special reinforced concrete containers and fill the void space by cement grout or another appropriate filling material. Since reinforced concrete containers themselves provide a 300-year leak-tightness guarantee, such an approach can be considered as an important contribution to the long-term safety of waste disposal. This is of special importance in densely populated countries, where disposal facilities are located close to settled sites.

Spent ion exchange resins and sludge, sometimes generated during waste evaporation or formed as sediment at the bottom of storage tanks, are a special waste category, which usually causes some processing problems. Direct incorporation of the resins/sludges/sediments into most common cement matrices requires a special procedure and modifications of the cement matrix which sometimes leads to a waste form with insufficient mechanical and durability properties. There are some other options: appli­cation of another matrix, compatible with the organic structure of spent resins (e. g., polymers or geopolymers), high temperature pyrolysis, medium temperature destruction (steam reforming), etc. Another option is to pack spent resins and sludge into special high integrity containers and consider their long-term storage or disposal in underground repositories or deep geological formations.

As has been demonstrated in this section, the selection of the individual steps and technological sequences involved in RAW processing is a serious problem with many various aspects to be considered. Each waste stream requires an individual approach and an individual selection of the proper waste encapsulation matrix, waste form and waste container. In this chapter, therefore, only general considerations have been presented that should be taken into account in the waste management planning process.

In most cases treatment of aqueous waste aims at splitting it into two streams: (a) a small fraction of concentrate containing the bulk of radionu­clides; and (b) a large part, the level of contamination of which is sufficiently low to permit its discharge to the environment or for recycling [11]. Effec­tive liquid treatment separates as much of the radioactive contamination as possible from the waste in a concentrated form. Generally, the radioac­tive concentrate requires additional conditioning prior to disposal. Aqueous treatment processes are usually based on conventional physical and chemi­cal treatment principles with individual characteristics of the waste to be considered. Failure to account for the chemical and biological nature of aqueous waste may result in inadequate treatment and/or conditioning and could even damage the waste processing facilities. Detailed descriptions of the technologies can be found in Refs [11, 15-18] . Historically, three tech­nologies have mainly been applied to treat aqueous waste, namely chemical precipitation, ion exchange and evaporation. Membrane processes such as reverse osmosis, nanofiltration, ultrafiltration and microfiltration are now also successfully used and demonstrating good performance. In each case, process limitations due to corrosion, scaling, foaming and the risk of fire or explosion in the presence of organic material should be carefully consid­ered, especially with regard to the safety implications of operations and maintenance. If the waste contains fissile material, the potential for critical­ity should be evaluated and eliminated to the extent practicable by means of design and administrative features.

The objective of a chemical precipitation process [15] is to remove radio­nuclides from liquid waste by the use of an insoluble finely divided solid material. The insoluble material, flocculate or floc is generally, but not nec­essarily, formed in situ in the waste stream as a result of a chemical reaction. The use of these processes concentrates the radioactivity present in a liquid waste stream into a small volume of wet solids (sludge) that can be sepa­rated by physical methods from the bulk liquid component. Chemical pre­cipitation is suitable for the waste which is low in radioactivity, alkaline in pH and contains a significant salt load. This process is simple and relatively inexpensive in terms of the plant and its operation but it requires good understanding of the process chemistry and strict consideration of process parameters. The process may be limited by the activity level.

Ion exchange is a standard method of liquid clean-up [16]. The ion exchange materials are insoluble matrices containing displaceable ions, which are capable of exchanging with ions in the liquid passing through by reversible reaction. Organic and inorganic, naturally occurring and syn­thetic ion exchangers have found their specific fields of application in dif­ferent purification and liquid waste treatment processes. If the waste is relatively free of salts, mildly acidic in pH and requires a decontamination factor of around 100 or so, ion exchange may be a good choice. This process is more expensive than chemical treatment — especially when special purpose resins are used — but has a wider range of application with regard to radioactivity concentration.

The limitation of conventional filtration and ion exchange is that colloidal particles, some radioactive, pass straight through to the product (treated) water. Colloidal particles containing 58/60Co, 54Mg, 55Fe and 125Sb are typical examples. Ultrafiltration is capable of removing these particles completely and has been adopted at a number of sites to complement the existing conventional filtration/ion exchange systems.

Membrane processes [ 17] are successfully used as one or more of the treatment steps in complex waste treatment schemes, which combine con­ventional and membrane treatment technologies. For example, electrodialy­sis is a well-established membrane technology that has been used widely for the desalination of brackish water and also to separate monovalent ions from multivalent ions. These combined systems offer superior treatment capabilities, particularly in instances where conventional methods alone could not perform a similar task as efficiently or effectively. They are capable of producing high-quality treated effluents with an acceptably low level of residual radioactivity for discharge, or for recycle and reuse. The concen­trate waste stream containing the removed radioactivity invariably needs further processing by evaporation or other means to facilitate final condi­tioning to a solid waste form suitable for intermediate storage and disposal. When applying membrane technologies, the selection of the membrane material, its configuration and the operating parameters are critical. A wide variety of membranes are commercially available with different operational characteristics [17] [ The choice of a membrane must be based not only on performance data (salt rejection, flux), but also take into account the inter­action of the membrane with the feed solution and whether this will lead to stable operation and minimal fouling (a process where deposits on surface or into pores of membrane cause performance degradation).

Evaporation is a proven method for the treatment of liquid radioactive waste providing both good decontamination and good concentration [18] . Water is removed in the vapour phase of the process leaving behind non­volatile components such as salts and most radionuclides. There could be situations when waste volumes are somewhat high, having a low salt content but a considerably higher activity level; in this event evaporation is used to reduce the waste volume to a concentrate and also to obtain a high decon­tamination factor (of the order of a few thousand). However, the process can be limited by the presence of volatile radionuclides, and also it is energy-intensive.

Waste immobilization is the conversion of a waste into a waste form by solidification, embedding, or encapsulation. The waste form can be pro­duced by chemical incorporation of the waste species into the structure of a suitable matrix (typically a glass, GCM, or ceramic) so that the radioactive species are atomically bound in the structure (chemical or atomic incorpo­ration) or encapsulated.

Chemical incorporation is typical for HLW. Cementation or other encapsulation/embedding technologies are typical for LLW or ILW.

Immobilization reduces the potential for migration or dispersion of radio­nuclides during handling, transport, storage, and/or disposal.

The dissolution rates by the electrochemical and chemical processes are (Ahn, 1996a):

S

Rdis = ±kef (E) [7.2]

and

where S is surface area of the dissolving phase, V is leachate volume, ke is rate constant for electrochemical dissolution, f(E) is dissolution rate as a function of electrochemical potential E, k. is rate constant for SF dissolu­tion, Cs is effective solubility limit of dissolving phase, C. is elemental con­centration under consideration, k+ is rate constant for growth of the reprecipitated phase, F is flow rate of ground water, and Npar is formation or growth rate of colloids per unit leachate concentration.

Equation [7.2] is for electrochemical process, Eq. [7.3] is for chemical process, and Eq. [7.4] is for release rate from the dissolution processes of the first two equations.

The fractional mobilization rate is the dissolution rate multiplied by the specific surface area of the SNF matrix. Conservatively, the fractional mobi­lization rates can be assumed constant within uncertainty ranges at a given temperature. The environmental conditions are important in determining the dissolution rates, including near field water chemistry, temperature, pH, or reducing or oxidizing conditions. Important water chemistry includes carbonates, and cations such as calcium or silica species (Ahn and Mohanty, 2008).

In connecting the dissolution rate to the fractional mobilization rate, the specific surface area is determined by the average fragment size (radius) and density of the waste form. Typically, the fragment size of commercial SNF is 0.1 cm (0.04 inch) (Ahn and Mohanty, 2008).

If the temperature exceeds 100°C (212°F), solid-state oxidation or hydra­tion will occur, depending on the RH. Higher uranium oxides (UO[.4 or U3O8) that form by oxidization of the UO2 matrix dissolve at a rate similar to the unoxidized UO[ matrix. Hydrated UO[-xH2O (x = 0.8, 2) dissolves 10-20 times faster than unhydrated oxides. However, the rate of hydration (i. e., the formation rate of UO3-xH2O) is slower than the aqueous dissolu­tion rate. Ahn and Mohanty (2008) summarized the effects of oxidation and hydration on the dissolution.

A. I. S O B O LE V and S. N. B RYKIN, RosRAO, Russia and O. A. G O R B U N O VA, Radon, Russia

DOI: 10.1533/9780857097446.2.345

Abstract: Global challenges in contemporary development of the Russian Federation the creation of a reliable state energy power system. The use of nuclear power, new nuclear technologies, sources of energy, medical innovations require further large-scale development of radioactive materials. However, this development is restrained by the problem of radioactive wastes accumulated from the early Russian nuclear programmes. This chapter describes current activity in the sphere of radioactive waste management, including consequences of technological incidents in the Russian Federation.

Key words: radioactive waste, contaminated region, radiation techniques, spent ionizing sources, repositories, protective coating, combined LRW treatment, vitrification, plasma technology, cementation, state accounting system, radiation-ecological monitoring.

9.2 Introduction

Russia is one of only a few countries in the world to have all the elements of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium output to the complete set of facili­ties necessary for radioactive waste (RAW) management (Fig. 10.1). Russia produces 9% of the world’s uranium output and 40% of the world’s enriched uranium, supplying half of the uranium required for western design nuclear power plants (NPPs), and the Russian fuel company TVEL supplies 17% of the nuclear fuel used by NPPs for peaceful purposes. These NPPs produce 16% of the total electric power manufactured in Russia and form the joint stock company called the ‘Concern Rosenergoatom’.

The global problem of nuclear and radiation safety is a historical inherit­ance from the Soviet atomic project. The accumulation of RAW and other nuclear materials since the Soviet era requires new approaches to the problem, including new methods both for processing and storing spent nuclear fuel and RAW and for decontaminating affected areas. Con­sequently, in 2007 the Russian government introduced a federal program

10.1 Map showing location of Russian nuclear facilities (courtesy of Rosatom state Nuclear Energy Corporation, Russia).

known as ‘Nuclear and radiation safety assurance for 2008 and until 2015’ with the specific aim of finding solutions to these problems. Plans are cur­rently underway for the development of the atomic industry in Russia, which include addressing historical RAW issues and also taking into account the events of 2011 in Japan at Fukushima-1 NPP.

Total ^-activity of atmospheric aerosols increased rapidly in April 1986 as the result of radionuclide release from the damaged reactor. However, starting from 1989, the ^-activity of aerosols has been primarily from natu­rally occurring radioactive elements.

In the contaminated areas, where farming activities (ploughing, harrow­ing, etc.) are actually not performed, the total ^-activity is 2-3 times less than that observed in areas not classified as radioactive contaminated zones. In case of intense works involving destruction of a soil surface layer, where the 137Cs contamination level is 370-555 kBq m-2, the radionuclide volumet­ric activity in aerosols at a height of 3-5 m may exceed the limits established by RSNU (1997).

The present average annual concentrations of 137Cs and 9 0Sr in aerosols are similar to the pre-accident levels, i. e. 0.08 x 10-5Bqm-3.

There were many lessons learned from the siting process in both Finland and Sweden. During the early years following the start of the programmes, almost all emphasis was on technical and scientific issues. This was understandable since the first goal was to develop a method and a system for nuclear waste management that could be accepted as a safe solution by the scientific com­munity. When the feasibility studies started, in Sweden in 1992 with the study in Storuman and in Finland already in 1986 with the preliminary study in Ikaalinen, it became obvious that a new dimension had been added, com­municating technical issues and assessment of risk to the general public.

In Storuman, the publicity was from the beginning characterized by polarization. National actors, such as Greenpeace, came to help the local opposition and could deliver clear and well media-adjusted messages. It soon became clear that communicating the risks of a nuclear waste reposi­tory required much work and time. Communication risk using information campaigns can be a successful method if the risks are known and to some extent accepted. In the case of nuclear waste, where risks are debated, there is room for interpretation. SKB soon realized that it was essential to gain the confidence of the majority of the public in a municipality, i. e., to be seen as honest and reliable before SKB’s risk assessments could be accepted. A similar lesson was learnt by TVO in Ikaalinen.

When the feasibility studies were completed, SKB ’ s CEO summarized the lessons learned and the way forward as (Nygards et al., 2003):

• The process itself must be well known and clear to get acceptance.

• The actors/stakeholders must also see the possibilities for how or in what way the process can be affected or changed and what is fixed.

• Openness and clarity in statements from all actors is absolutely essential.

• All actors in the process must be prepared to answer questions.

• All actors must be prepared to listen to (and learn by) the arguments brought up during the process.

• Discussion in small groups and with the people potentially most affected is the most valuable part of the process to build trust and to learn about key questions.

• There will never be consensus regarding all questions. The fact that you have a consultation process does not mean that consensus will be or will have to be reached.

• The attitudes among those working in the process must reflect their belief that dialogue and discussion of these questions will create a better repository — both technically and socially.

• There must be respect for all stakeholders and their arguments and a willingness to listen and learn.

In Finland, the legally binding DiP included technical concept and public acceptance of the spent fuel repository to be located in Eurajoki. In the Finnish experience, their success factors for spent fuel and waste manage­ment can be summarized as (Varjoranta and Patlemaa, 2010):

• Long-term political commitment to resolve the spent fuel and waste issue.

• National strategy and discipline.

• Well-defined liabilities and roles.

• Establishment of funding system at early stage.

• Veto-right for the local community regarding hosting the repository in a stepwise licensing process.

• Regulator’s strategic planning to allow development of regulatory approach parallel with R&D and in analogy with nuclear plant safety regulations.

• Well-structured, stepwise, open and defendable implementation pro­gramme using graded approach and ‘rolling documents’ strategy.

• Good safety culture and importance of dialogue between the regulator and the implementer based on comparable levels of technical competence.

• Transparency and engagement of public and domestic and international scientific and technical communities.

Other UN programmes, such as the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) [21] implement a number of initiatives aimed at remediation of contaminated sites in Central and East Asia. One of these projects is the ENVSEC Initiative (Environment and Security Initiative) ‘Strengthening Coordination of Project Formulation and Mobilization of Resource for Sustainable Radioactive Waste Management in Central Asia’. The latter is targeting contaminated sites with uranium tailings in the Kyrgyz Republic, Republic of Kazakhstan, Republic of Tajikistan and Republic of Uzbekistan.

In addition to the above international organisations, regional organisa­tions and other groups are involved in initiatives concerning the regulation of nuclear, waste and radiation safety, e. g.: [5]

[28]) were established, as well as a Regulatory Cooperation Forum (RCF) for new countries entering into nuclear energy [29], etc.

At a national level, the different organisations that play a key role in the establishment and implementation of systems for management and control of radioactive waste can be summarised as follows:

• operators (such as NPPs, research facilities, medical laboratories) that produce and handle waste and their technical support organisations (TSOs, e. g., contractors);

• regulatory authorities that perform regulatory oversight during all steps of RAW management (it is also possible that these authorities use the services of dedicated TSOs);

• in some countries a dedicated radioactive waste management organisa­tion is established to deal with the pre-disposal management (e. g., COVRA in the Netherlands [30]), long-term management (i. e., storage and disposal) of this waste (e. g., ANDRA in France [31] ; SE ‘RAO’ in Bulgaria [32] ; PURAM in Hungary [33]; NWMO in Canada [34]) or even decommissioning of nuclear facilities (ENRESA, Spain [35] and NDA, UK [36]);

• financial authorities that in many cases control the national funds for radioactive waste management and decommissioning;

• research institutions that are involved in supporting research activities such as site investigation and understanding of the phenomena influenc­ing safety.