A. GENERAL QUESTIONS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEEP GEOLOGICAL REPOSITORY

1. What is nuclear waste?

The term "nuclear waste" is often used in the media in connection with the development of a deep geological repository, but this term is not known in Czech legislation. Only the terms 'radioactive waste' and 'spent nuclear fuel' are factually and formally correct.

Act No. 263/2016 Coll. defines radioactive waste as "an item which is a radioactive substance or an article or equipment containing or contaminated by a radioactive substance, for which no further use is foreseen and which does not satisfy the conditions laid down in this Act for the clearance of radioactive substances from a workplace." The same law defines spent nuclear fuel as "irradiated nuclear fuel that has been permanently removed from the core of a nuclear reactor". “In addition to the requirements arising from other provisions of this Act, the same requirements as those applicable to RAW shall apply to spent fuel until such time that it is declared radioactive waste by the producer in the radioactive waste accompanying document or by the Office (i.e. SÚJB) by a decision" (Section 110(1) of Act No. 263/2016 Coll.). It is clear from the above that spent nuclear fuel is currently neither radioactive nor "nuclear" waste, but must be managed as if it were radioactive waste. This means, among other things, that the import of spent nuclear fuel from abroad and its disposal on the territory of the Czech Republic is prohibited.

2. What is a deep geological repository for radioactive waste and how is it different from a radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel storage facility? What is an intermediate spent nuclear fuel storage facility?

A deep geological repository is a type of RAW disposal facility; i.e. it is intended for the permanent, indefinite placement of radioactive waste with no intention of removal. A storage facility for radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel is intended for the temporary, time-limited placement of these materials with the intention of retrieval. Intermediate spent fuel storage facility is another inaccurate term used, particularly by the media, which is not defined in legislative documents.

The storage and disposal of radioactive waste is clearly defined in Act No. 263/2016 Coll. and differs in the time frame of these activities and the sequence of other activities. While storage is time-limited and envisages further management of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, disposal concerns only radioactive waste and is unlimited in time, with no intention to remove the disposed material. 

The storage of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel is one of the last, but not the last, step in the process of managing these materials. Radioactive waste management is defined in Act No. 263/2016 Coll. as "all activities that relate to collection, segregation, treatment, conditioning, storage, or disposal of radioactive waste, excluding transportation from the site where these activities are carried out". Similarly, the management of spent nuclear fuel is defined in Section 106(e) of Act No. 263/2016 Coll. as "all activities related to the collection, storage, reprocessing or disposal of spent nuclear fuel, with the exception of transportation outside the premises of the facility in which these activities are carried out". In contrast to storage, disposal concerns only radioactive waste, and the spent nuclear fuel once it is declared as radioactive waste by the generator or by the SÚJB prior to disposal (see answer to question 1). Even if no further use is envisaged for the disposed radioactive waste, this does not mean that it cannot be managed for a limited period of time. In the case of a deep geological repository, until the disposal facilities are closed, it can be ensured that the disposed material can be removed if such a requirement arises in the future (e.g. for the reuse of spent nuclear fuel that has already been declared as radioactive waste). In particular, given the planned start of operation of the DGR in 2065 and at least 50 years of operation, this means that the disposed radioactive waste could be managed until at least 2115.

Intermediate Spent Fuel Storage Facility is a historical term that was introduced in the 1990s when the first spent nuclear fuel storage facility was developed at the NPP Dukovany site and is still used as its official name (Intermediate Spent Fuel Storage Facility Dukovany). However, in terms of the terminology of Act No. 263/2016 Coll., it is a spent nuclear fuel storage facility, similar to the second storage facility at Dukovany and the storage facility at the NPP Temelín site.

3. Why is it necessary to build a deep geological repository for radioactive waste in the Czech Republic? How can it be assured that if the Czech Republic is are among the first to have a DGR facility, the country will not be a "dumping ground" for neighbouring countries?

Based on the international legal regulations to which the Czech Republic is bound, the Czech Republic is responsible for its own radioactive waste and bears all costs associated with it. In the conditions of the Czech Republic, a deep geological repository is the only realistic and technically and economically feasible option to close the fuel cycle of nuclear power plants and research reactors; i.e. to dispose of spent nuclear fuel in the long term (forever). In addition, radioactive waste that cannot be disposed of in existing repositories must be disposed of in the DGR. At the same time, the development of DGR is one way to ensure that future generations are not unduly burdened technically, economically and socially. Past and existing legislation prohibits the import of radioactive waste for disposal in the Czech Republic and there is no indication that these prohibitions will be relaxed in the future.

The previous legislation, Act No. 18/1998 Coll., already prohibited the import of radioactive waste into the Czech Republic and this prohibition has been implemented without major changes in the new Act No. 263/2016 Coll.

4. Why is there no consideration being given to exporting spent nuclear fuel abroad and storing it there? Why is there not more talk of building a European, Central European or international reactor? Is a joint DGR with Slovakia on the table?

Law prohibits the import of radioactive waste, including former spent nuclear fuel, from abroad for disposal in the Czech Republic. An identical prohibition is part of the legislative provisions of all countries using nuclear energy and sources of ionising radiation for peaceful purposes, including, for example, Slovakia.

Act No. 263/2016 Coll., § 7(3) prohibits the import of radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel into the territory of the Czech Republic. The set regime is based on the premise that each state is primarily responsible for its own radioactive waste and bears the costs associated with it (which are significant and should be borne primarily by the generator of this waste), therefore import into the Czech Republic is prohibited. Two exceptions to this prohibition concern the treatment of radioactive waste from the Czech Republic abroad or the reverse procedure. In each case, however, the treated waste is returned to the country of origin, where it must be safely stored and subsequently disposed of.

Exports to countries that are unable to ensure the efficient and safe management of radioactive waste are strictly prohibited. However, in general terms, the export of radioactive waste is not prohibited (Article 107(2) of Act No 263/2016 Coll.), although it cannot be assumed that such exports will be possible in the present or future.

The idea of an international radioactive waste disposal facility is not new and can be traced back to the 1980s. However, its realisation faces the virtually insurmountable obstacle of public and most politicians' opposition to the disposal of foreign radioactive waste on their territory. Thus, despite the undeniable technical, economic and logistical advantages, the possibility of developing an international disposal facility remains only theoretical and cannot be realistically envisaged.

5. Why is it not possible to store spent nuclear fuel in existing mine workings, e.g. in the Ostrava region?

Spent nuclear fuel must be safely isolated from environmental components for hundreds of thousands of years. The geological environment in which the deep geological repository will be located and which contributes to this isolation must be minimally disturbed by natural or human activities. Therefore, existing underground facilities, which show a significant degree of ‘damage’ from mining activities, cannot be used for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel.

The key to the safe disposal of any radioactive waste is its long-term isolation from the environment until its radioactivity has declined to a level comparable to that of the host environment. To achieve this, the multi-barrier principle is used, where the actual radioactive waste, e.g. former spent nuclear fuel, is placed in several barriers independent of each other. In the case of a deep geological repository, these are the disposal packaging, the fill and backfill material and the host environment. Each of these barriers must meet predetermined physical and chemical properties and must prevent the penetration of radioactivity into other components of the disposal facility system. It is therefore necessary that the geological environment in which the deep geological repository is located be as 'homogeneous' as possible, without significant geological disturbances (cracks, faults) and without the presence of current and future human activity that could compromise the containment properties of the disposal facility system.

Decree No. 378/2016 Coll. specifies in Section 18 the requirements for the scope and method of evaluation of the area for the location of a deep geological repository. In the event that the rock environment allows for unreasonable migration of radioactive, chemical and toxic substances from radioactive waste during the expected development of a DGR, this facility cannot be located in this environment. This is also the case for existing mine facilities, where there are a large number of so-called preferential migration pathways, such as underground passages, boreholes, fractures caused by blasting, but also geological faults (reddening, fractures,...). For these reasons, the use of existing underground facilities for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel is completely inappropriate.

6. What are the other options for spent nuclear fuel management? To what extent can we reprocess spent nuclear fuel and what are the positives and negatives associated with reprocessing? Will the future not bring more and better technical solutions for dealing with spent nuclear fuel?

For a long time, since about the 1960s, the only two options for dealing safely with spent nuclear fuel have been direct disposal or reprocessing. Both of these options require the construction of a deep geological repository. In the first case for the spent nuclear fuel and in the second for at least the high-level radioactive waste generated during spent nuclear fuel reprocessing. There is no "waste-free" option for spent nuclear fuel management and, with a high degree of probability there will be none in the future.

The only two realistic options for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel are direct disposal or reprocessing. The option of storing spent nuclear fuel without clearly defining the end of the fuel cycle (the so-called "wait and see" strategy) cannot be considered sustainable in the long term and is therefore not even considered in the Government's Policy for Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel Management in the Czech Republic.

In the case of direct disposal, after several decades of storage (in the Czech Republic at NPPs sites), the fuel is transported to a deep geological repository site and, after repackaging into disposal packages, placed underground at a depth of about 500 m below the earth's surface. It is technically possible to implement measures that will allow for the duration of the operation of the underground disposal facility (in the Czech Republic at least 50 years, but probably much longer) to retrieve the packaging files, transport them to the surface area and further dispose of them according to the needs of future generations.

Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel means a process or activity carried out with the aim of obtaining fissile or propellant material from spent nuclear fuel for further use. Spent nuclear fuel contains up to 94 % pristine uranium (a mixture of the isotopes ²³⁵U, ²³⁶U and²³⁸ U) and about 1 % ²³⁹Pu. These isotopes are separated from the spent nuclear fuel in the reprocessing process and can be used to produce ERU (enriched uranium fuel from 'reprocessed' uranium) and MOX (fuel containing a mixture of uranium oxides and plutonium). Approximately eight spent fuel assemblies can be used to produce one ERU and one MOX fuel assembly each, resulting in a saving of about %25 of natural uranium resources. Using MOX fuel in a single reactor of about 1000 MW _e(e.g. one of the units of Temelín NPP), the amount of spent nuclear fuel can be reduced from about 1200 t (direct disposal) to 320 t over 60 years of operation. Overall, the inventory of the deep geological repository will be reduced, but the total cost of reprocessing the fuel and subsequent disposal of the resulting radioactive waste and spent MOX fuel will significantly exceed the cost of direct disposal of the spent nuclear fuel.

7. Producers of spent nuclear fuel claim that it is a valuable raw material. Why, then, are they considering "burying" it in a deep geological repository? Can all the components of spent fuel be considered valuable raw material for further energy use, or does it contain components destined for permanent disposal?

CEZ, a. s., as the only producer of spent nuclear fuel from power reactors in the Czech Republic, refers to spent nuclear fuel as used fuel because it "still contains a significant amount of energy" (see CEZ, a. s. website). At the same time, however, it does not dispute the necessity of building a deep geological repository, either for the direct disposal of 'used' fuel or for the highly radioactive waste resulting from its reprocessing, where only isotopes of uranium and plutonium can be further used as energy sources.

The use of spent nuclear fuel for energy production purposes faces significant technical and economic challenges. That is why the majority of countries operating NPPs has never proceeded to routine reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel (except the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Finland, Sweden and the country with the largest number of operating nuclear power plants in the world - the USA) or has abandoned it (Germany, Great Britain, Switzerland). Currently, the only commercially operated spent fuel reprocessing plants are available worldwide in France and Russia. Experience with reprocessing and sufficient, affordable uranium supplies make direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel the only realistic alternative to the end of the fuel cycle in the Czech Republic in the long term.

Although up to 94 % of the original enriched uranium remains in the spent nuclear fuel (see answer to question A.6) and can theoretically be further used for power generation, the spent MOX or ERU fuel cannot be further reprocessed for technical and economic reasons. Thus more than 80 % of the original enriched uranium cannot be further used for power generation. The spent MOX and ERU fuel must therefore be directly disposed, together with RAW from its production, in an underground disposal facility.

8. The process of reducing the number of sites from nine to four in 2019-2020 has been accompanied by considerable haste. Why?

The selection of deep geological repository sites began in the late 1980s and early 1990s in the Czechoslovak Republic and, after approximately 30 years, resulted in the identification of four potential sites. This process is about 15 year slower compared to other countries, e.g. Finland, and therefore there is no rush to narrow down the number of sites.

At the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, efforts to initiate work towards the development of a policy for securing the end of the fuel cycle of nuclear power in the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic were intensifying. These efforts resulted in a meeting of the Government of the Czechoslovak Federal Republic and the subsequent adoption of its resolution initiating work on the state research task "Development of a deep geological repository for high-level waste in the Czechoslovak Federal Republic". At this time, the final end of the fuel cycle had not yet been decided, but there was a consensus of opinion that deep disposal of spent nuclear fuel would always be the only safe way to close the fuel cycle.

Until the start of the coordinated programme for the development of a deep geological repository in 1993, work was commissioned from various sources (Federal Ministry of Economy, SÚJB, Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic, ČEZ, SEP) as independent studies, which provided outputs in the field of DGR siting, planning and system and criterion problems. From 1993 until the establishment of SÚRAO in 1997, which took over the development of the deep geological repository under its responsibility, the project was coordinated by 12-16 employees of ÚJV Řež, a. s.

Already in 1996, a critical search of 13 sites out of the original 27 defined was completed and the number of potentially suitable areas was reduced to seven. Subsequently, further work on the selection of deep geological repository sites was and is being carried out by SÚRAO. The number of potential sites has continuously changed until it has stabilised at nine sites. The culmination of the process of narrowing the number of sites to four was the work of the Expert Advisory Panel appointed by the Director of SÚRAO in November 2019, which narrowed the number of potential DGR sites based on the information already available. The Advisory Panel guaranteed the expertise, objectivity, openness and transparency of the process of reducing the number of HE sites, including the evaluation and analysis of the outputs of the process. In addition to the seven members of the Advisory Panel, representatives of the SUJB, the Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences and the sites concerned participated as observers. The Advisory Panel concluded its work in June 2020 and selected four of the original nine sites for the next stages of the HH development.

It is clear from the above overview that the selection of the four potential deep geological repository sites was a long-term process that lasted approximately 30 years and culminated in the outputs of the Advisory Panel of Experts. Although at some points the work of the Advisory Panel was challenging to meet the set time milestones, the SÚJB does not consider the process of narrowing down the number of sites to have been rushed. On the contrary, in comparison with Finland, where the development of a DGR started in 1978 (preparation of preliminary geological studies) and in 1992 the number of sites was reduced from five to three (Romuvaara at Kuhmo, Kivetty at Konginkangas and Olkiluoto at Eurajoki), the development of a DGR  in the Czech Republic is about 15 years late.

9. What is the place of the regulator - the SÚJB - in the process of developing a deep geological repository?

Act No. 263/2016 Coll. defines the activities of the State Office for Nuclear Safety. According to this Act, the SÚJB is not directly involved in the development of a deep geological repository until the time of the issuance of the licence for the location of the nuclear installation, which will be the deep geological repository. According to the current Policy of Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel Management in the Czech Republic of 2019, this permit should be issued in 2040. Despite this clearly legislated role, the SÚJB is cooperating with SÚRAO and other interested state authorities and institutions in the development of the deep geological repository. 

The development of a deep geological repository is one of the main long-term priorities for the SÚJB. Therefore, since 2004, it has systematically monitored and since 2012 commented in its annual reports on the status of deep geological repository development in the Czech Republic. In 2014, an agreement was signed between SÚJB and SÚRAO on cooperation in the field of deep geological repository development in the Czech Republic, which defines the general framework of cooperation between these institutions necessary for the successful progress of the development of DGR, in particular the selection of the DGR site. In accordance with this Agreement, the representatives of SÚJB have continuously participated in the meetings of the working groups dealing with the development of the deep geological repository, such as the Expert Council of SÚRAO, the Working Group for Dialogue on DGR and the Advisory Panel of Experts. In 2016 and 2017, based on the requirement of Government Resolution No. 50/2016, dated 25 January 2016, point IV, paragraph 1 and the related Chapter 8 of Part III of Material No. 1617/15(h), the SÚJB commented on the techno-economic study for the implementation of the research programme at the Bukov Underground Research Site, with emphasis on the suitability of the site for research activities. The SÚJB has also issued its opinions on non-legislative documents such as the "Proposal for addressing the social consequences of the closure of the Rožná uranium mine in Dolní Rožínka" and, in 2018, the study of the commissioning safety reports of nine candidate sites, which served as a basis for the Advisory Panel of Experts for narrowing the number of DGR sites.

SUJB is further strengthening its capacity related to the independent safety assessment of a future deep geological repository. Between 2015 and 2018, SÚJB, in cooperation with CVŘ, s.r.o., carried out a project resulting in an initial computer model of the DGR reference site, which will enable SÚJB to assess the suitability of individual disposal policies and sites for a future deep geological repository. Furthermore, at the end of 2019, in cooperation with the Technology Agency of the Czech Republic, the SÚJB announced the project Methods for Verification of Safety Criteria for Geological Disposal of High Level Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel in the 3rd Call of the Programme for Support of Applied Research, Experimental Development and Innovation THÉTA, sub-programme 1 (Research in the Public Interest), thematic area 1.1 (Nuclear Safety).

10. How does SÚJB stand in the world in defending the Czech Policy of Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel Management in terms of preparation of the DGR?

Government Resolution No. 487/2002 first approved the Policy of Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel Management in the Czech Republic in 2002. This and subsequent revisions of the Policy were independently evaluated in the framework of an international IRRS mission organised by the IAEA in 2013 and by the European Commission in 2016. All comments have been taken into account in the current version of the Policy in 2019.

The Policy is the initial document formulating the policy and strategy of the state and state authorities in the management of SF and RAW (originating from nuclear facilities as well as sites with sources of ionizing radiation in health care, research and industry). The Policy was updated in 2010-2014 to reflect the current situation in the field of RAW management, the state of preparation of the DGR, legislative changes, government programme documents and international experience and trends. Other motives for updating the Policy were the requirements of Directive 2011/70/Euratom and the recommendations of the IAEA and OECD/NEA. The draft updated Policy was approved by the Government on 15 December 2014. Following the completion of the Environmental Impact Assessment (SEA) process, the updated Policy Note was approved by Government Resolution No. 852/2017 of 29 November 2017. As a result of additional EC requests for the addition of so-called performance indicators in the implementation of the Policy and the assessment of the costs of the national programme, a further update of the Policy was carried out in 2019. Currently valid document was discussed and approved by the Government by Resolution No. 597/2019 of 26 August 2019.

11. What is the SÚJB's position on the fact that the Supreme Administrative Court has repeatedly commented on the ease of assessing the evaluation of sites in terms of geological exploration and their subsequent reduction from nine to four, already in the case of Kraví hora, Čihadlo, or most recently Hrádek?

In its three judgments concerning the Čihadlo, Kraví hora and Hrádek sites, against which no appeal is admissible, the Supreme Administrative Court has stated that deep geological "repository is a matter of public interest of a high degree of importance". Therefore, local communities in potential future deep geological repository sites have no right to oppose geological work and, if their site is selected based on geological criteria, they must tolerate the construction of a deep geological repository.  "No one has the right to prevent the promotion of a public interest (in this particular case the construction of a deep geological repository) simply because they do not want its potential negative impacts in their vicinity".

SÚJB fully respects the opinion of the Supreme Administrative Court.