International Benchmarking of Community Benefits Related ... · Executive Summary 3 1 A diversity of benefits relating to a diversity of projects 5 1.1 Scope of the projects 5 1.2

NIROND 2010–01 E, January 2010 i

International Benchmarking of Community Benefits Related to Facilities for Radioactive Waste Management Report commissioned by EDRAM

Dr. Anne Bergmans

University of Antwerp

NIROND 2010–01 E January 2010

Belgian agency for radioactive wate and enriched fissile materials

International Benchmarking of Community Benefits Related to Facilities for Radioactive Waste Management Report commissioned by EDRAM

Dr. Anne Bergmans

University of Antwerp

NIROND 2010–01 E January 2010

International Association for Environmentally

Safe Disposal of Radioactive Materials

ISBN : 9789057282263

EAN : 9789057282263 This report is also available in Dutch (“Internationale toetsing van maatschappelijke meerwaarden verbonden aan installaties voor het beheer van radioactief afval” - NIROND 2010-01 N) and French (“Comparaison internationale des plus-values sociétales liées aux installations pour la gestion des déchets radioactifs” - NIROND 2010-01 F).

NIROND 2010–01 E, January 2010 1

Purpose and Method

This report was commissioned by EDRAM, an international association of radioactive

waste management agencies. EDRAM members are:

Andra (Agence nationale pour la gestion des déchets radioactifs – France), BfS (Bundesamt

für Strahlenschutz – Germany), DBE (Deutsche Gesellschaft zum Bau und Betrieb von Endla-

gern für Abfallstoffe – Germany), Enresa (Empresa Nacional de Residuos Radiactivos –

Spain), Nagra (Nationale Genossenschaft für die Lagerung radioaktiver Abfälle – Switzerland),

NDA (Nuclear Decommissioning Authority – United Kingdom), Numo (Nuclear Waste Man-

agement Organization – Japan), NWMO (Nuclear Waste Management Organization – Cana-

da), OCRWM (Office of Civillian Radioactive Waste Management – USA), ONDRAF/NIRAS

(Belgian Agency for Radioactive Waste and Enriched Fissile Materials – Belgium), Posiva

(Nuclear Waste Management Organization – Finland), and SKB (Svensk Kärnbränslehantering

AB – Sweden) 1.

The purpose of this report is to establish an overview of community benefits that are made

available for communities hosting radioactive waste facilities in EDRAM member states2.

The focus is on social and economic benefits. Measures that have community empower-

ment as a main objective (e.g. the funding of the local partnerships in Belgium or the CLIS

in France), are not taken into account in this report.

This report offers an overview of current practices, but does not provide a particular theo-

retical reflection on issues such as the purpose or ethics of making available community

benefits and does not make a comparison with the possible applications of benefits in

other sectors.

We obtained the data that form the basis for this report from the waste management agen-

cies that are members of EDRAM, through:

the 2007 NDA literature review of community partnerships3,

a questionnaire sent to EDRAM members in the summer of 2008,

additional interviews with representatives from the concerned waste management

agencies (mainly via telephone or e-mail), and

the author’s own reading of public information and relevant documents referred to by

the respondents.

1 http://www.edram.info/en/index.php 2 EDRAM members are: Andra (France), BfS and DBE (Germany), Enresa (Spain), Nagra (Switzerland),

NDA (United Kingdom), Numo (Japan), NWMO (Canada), OCRWM (USA), ONDRAF/NIRAS (Belgium),

Posiva (Finland), and SKB (Sweden). 3 NDA (2007) Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: Literature Review of International Experience of Com-

munity Partnerships.

2 NIROND 2010–01 E, January 2010

For analytical purposes, all financial data were converted into Euros of the same financial

year (exchange rate on 31/12)4, then inflated by a rate of 2 %/year in order to reach a 2008

Euro value. Case specific figures are represented in their original value, accompanied by a

Euro value 2008, to allow for some comparison. This report, however, does not contain

any direct comparison between financial benefits, as these are strongly context related.

Furthermore, many benefits (other than financial) are not easily quantifiable in monetary

terms. They nevertheless form a substantial part of facility siting and good community rela-

tions in most (if not all) countries in this study. Focussing solely on quantifiable elements,

would therefore overemphasize the financial benefits, while this report tries to offer an as

comprehensive as possible overview of all social and economic benefits made available in

EDRAM member states.

The body of this report consists of three main sections. In the first section we broadly de-

scribe the types of benefits across the EDRAM member states and the main characteris-

tics of the various projects they relate to. The second section addresses the variety of con-

textual elements that co-determine the nature and scope of community benefits in each

country, and looks more closely at the decision-making processes that shaped them. Fi-

nally, the third section offers a more detailed overview on the various types of community

benefits and how they are implemented or planned in the EDRAM member states.

The author wishes to thank the following people in particular:

Gerda Bal (ONDRAF/NIRAS) for a critical first read of this report and her help in process-

ing the financial data and making them comparable;

Bernard Faucher and Gerald Ouzounian (Andra), Mariano Molina (ENRESA), Miklos

Garamszeghy and Ken Nash (NWMO), Jay Jones (DOE), Yoshikane Murakami and

Minoru Inamura (NUMO), Timo Seppälä (Posiva), Philip Birkhäuser (Nagra), Enrique

Biurrun and André Lommerzheim (DBE), Elizabeth Atherton, Jay Redgrove and Nicky

Beale (NDA), June Love and Marie Mackay (DSRL - UK), Monica Hammarström and

Mikael Gontier (SKB) for the extensive and detailed descriptions of the situation in

their country.

4 I.e. CAD 2004: 1 EUR = 1.5835 CAD; CAD 2006: 1 EUR = 1.4669 CAD; JPY 2007: 1 EUR = 163.83 JPY;

USD 1999: 1 EUR = 1.0658; USD 2003: 1 EUR = 1.2286 USD; USD 2007: 1 EUR = 1.4486 USD; USD

2008: 1 EUR = 1.3180; SEK 2008: 1 EUR = 10.2335 SEK; CHF 2008: 1 EUR = 1.5249 CHF; GBP

2003: 1EUR = 1,4252 GBP; GBP 2008: 1 EUR = 0.83907 GBP; for GBP 2009 the same exchange rate

(31/12/2008) was used.


Executive Summary

Where the siting of radioactive waste management disposal facilities is concerned, socio-

economic community benefits form a substantial part of siting efforts and of building and

maintaining good community relations. In some cases community benefits are not limited

to final repository sites, but are also made available for other types of radioactive waste

management or related facilities.

Community benefits generally go above and beyond direct and indirect benefits from the

facility itself. This points to a growing general recognition that communities willing to fulfil

an essential service to the nation by hosting a radioactive waste management facility (and

in particular a final repository) have the right to added-value measures to develop their

social and economic wellbeing. These additional benefits come in various shapes, but

generally fall under one of the following five categories: (1) additional investments in local

infrastructure, (2) additional local activity, (3) specific subsidies and grants, (4) offering

support in the form of training and logistics, (5) setting up community funds for local devel-

opment. Only in a few countries, a specific tax or a particular tax-rate applies for nuclear

installations, including radioactive waste management facilities.

Throughout the EDRAM countries the nature and scope of community benefits are pre-

dominantly determined through negotiations between the implementer and the host com-

munity. In all cases these form, in one way or the other, an integral – albeit not necessarily

formal – part of facility siting procedures, running in parallel with (preliminary) site investi-

gations and feasibility studies. In most cases, negotiations on community benefits are con-

cluded before licensing. When agreement is reached, this is either guaranteed directly by

means of a contractual agreement between the implementer or waste producers and the

host community, or in a second instance confirmed at the national level through some form

of decision in principle or legal act. In all cases, the ‘hosting agreements’, are conditional

on regulatory approval.

The limited contextual information gathered for this study indicates that context matters

and that the nature, dimension and scope of the various benefits are to a large extent de-

termined by the social and political context, as well as the needs and requirements of the

host communities. This makes a detailed comparison between countries difficult, if not im-

possible and to a large extent of little value. It is more important to look at the process

through which they came about. These processes that concerned parties go through to

negotiate benefits and define added value (that is: what communities consider to contribute

to their citizens well-being) are crucial in determining whether or not such benefits are seen

as appropriate by all concerned. Through these processes, relationships are built which

have an impact on the perception of appropriateness of the agreed benefits. If the benefits

are the end product of a decision-making process that is considered legitimate and fair by

all parties, then the community benefits in question could be considered appropriate for

that specific situation. And this study shows that situations vary across countries, across

different parts of one country, but also across time.


Executive Summary 3

1 A diversity of benefits relating to a diversity of projects 5

1.1 Scope of the projects 5

1.2 A broad range of community benefits 6

1.3 Tables for section 1 8

2 A diverse range of contexts 11

2.1 Potentially influential elements 11

2.2 Decision-making on community benefits 12

2.3 Tables for section 2 15

3 Six types of community benefits 19

3.1 Direct and indirect benefits from the facility itself 19

3.2 Additional investment in local infrastructure 20

3.3 Additional activity 20

3.4 Specific subsidies and grants 21

3.5 Support through training and logistics 22

3.6 Community funds for local development 23

3.7 Taxes as a particular type of community benefit 29

4 Conclusion 31

5 Annexes 33

5.1 Annex 1: scope of facilities under consideration in this report 33

5.2 Annex 2: overview of community benefits related to currently operational facilities

37


1 A diversity of benefits relating to a diversity of pro-jects

In each of the 11 EDRAM member states various types of local benefits have been put in

place, or are being considered, in relation to a range of facilities for the management of

radioactive waste. In some countries, the gamut is relatively small, while in others a broad

pallet of small to larger scale initiatives are being implemented.

In the following paragraphs, we give an overview of the range of waste management pro-

jects or facilities that give rise to these community benefits, as well as a general overview

of the types of benefits we identified. In the final section of this report, the different benefits

are considered in more detail.

1.1 Scope of the projects

The projects and facilities considered in this study do not cover the whole range of radioac-

tive waste related facilities in all the EDRAM countries, but only represent those countries-

for which we received data about associated community benefits. The waste categories

and volumes that these facilities are (being) designed for vary widely. Generally speaking,

the projects concerned cover:

disposal of short lived low and intermediate level waste (LILW): # 6 (of which 5 are

surface repositories);

deep disposal of long lived LILW or transuranic waste (TRU): # 4;

deep disposal of high level waste (HLW) and/or spent fuel: # 6 (of which 2 combine

disposal of HLW with disposal of long lived LILW);

central interim storage (CIS) facilities for diverse categories of wastes: # 3;

underground research laboratories (URL) or rock characterisation facilities (RCF) that

do not contain radioactive materials: # 4.

The projects under consideration are in various stages of implementation: some are al-

ready operational, some are under construction. In some countries the facility is planned

and the location known, but a licence not yet obtained. In some of these cases the licens-

ing process has started and a licence is pending; while in others a licence application is

still under preparation. In a number of cases, the data obtained in this study, concern pro-

posals related to possible or probable measures accompanying facilities for which no loca-

tion has been found yet.

An overview of the different types of facilities or projects that form the object of this study,

is provided in table 1 (see infra: 1.3). A short description of each of the concerned facilities

operational today can be found in Annex 1. The data used to specify size and costs of the various programmes, are based on current

estimates, made available by the concerned waste management agencies. According to

this information, we can conclude that the size of the various facilities differs substantially,

as there are large differences in the amounts of wastes destined for these facilities. For


separately treated LILW5 and TRU waste, amounts range in general between some 7,000

m³ to 230,000 m³. Next to this medium size programmes, there is Japan, with an excep-

tionally low volume of 19,000 m³ (long lived LILW), the large French and British pro-

grammes, dealing with exceptionally high volumes of more than 1,000,000 m³ of short lived

LILW (France)6 or LLW (UK)7. Numbers for HLW and spent fuel are less easily comparable,

but in this case volumes (including in some cases long lived LILW destined for the same

disposal facility) range from about 10,000 m³ to almost 88,000 m³. That appears to be a

much lower volume than in the UK, which has to deal with more than 470,000 m³ of higher

level wastes. The Yucca Mountain project in the USA – for over 25 years now considered

to be the future national repository for all their HLW which is designed to take a maximum

of 70,000 MTHM (metric tons of heavy metal).

The total costs (in EUR 2008) for constructing and operating the facilities vary considera-

bly. Costs for repositories for LILW - both surface repositories and geological disposal fa-

cilities - and interim storage facilities vary roughly between 700 and 3,200 million EUR. For

the deep disposal of HLW, spent fuel or TRU waste these costs vary considerably between

a good 2 and 22 billion EUR. These cost differences are to some extent related to the size

of the waste programmes, but not exclusively. Other factors, like the type of host rock, also

have an impact. The expected total life cycle cost of about 96,2 billion USD (73 billion

EUR) - of which some 54,8 billion (41.5 billion EUR) for construction and operation of the

facility - for the Yucca Mountain project, currently being put on hold by the Obama admini-

stration, considerably exceeds all other programmes.

1.2 A broad range of community benefits

Throughout the EDRAM member states a different framing is used to refer to community

benefits, leading to the use of varying terminology, particularly when regarding direct fund-

ing of affected communities. In some countries (such as Switzerland and Germany) explicit

reference is made to benefits as “compensation” or “compensatory measures”, while oth-

ers (such as Spain) strongly oppose such terminology, arguing that risk cannot be com-

pensated and that the risk induced by radioactive waste management (RWM) activities is

considered comparable to other industrial activities. In the Nordic countries (Finland and

Sweden), the impact - directly and indirectly - of the facility on the local economy is

stressed as a benefit in itself. This view is also shared by the concerned municipalities. In

Sweden, this led to the agreement that SKB will invest more in local (economic) develop-

ment in the municipality that was not selected, than in the host community of the future

repository for spent fuel. In most other countries additional employment, local procurement

and potential spin-offs are also referred to as immediate benefits for a host community. It is

5 Some countries, such as Spain, have a separate category of very low level waste (VLLW). Here we have

included these volumes within the group of LILW. 6 The facility in Soulaine (Centre de l’Aube) that is considered in this report, is designed for 1,000,000 m³,

but over 500,000 m³ has already been disposed of in the Centre de la Manche, close to la Hague, a

surface disposal facility which is currently being closed and covered. 7 The facility at Dounreay and the new vault at the low level waste repository (LLWR) near the village of

Drigg in Cumbria , which are the UK cases considered in this report, are destined to host 34,000 and

110,000 m³ of LLW respectively. The LLWR facility has existed since 1959, however, and already con-

tains about 1,000,000 m³ of LLW.


also perceived that communities willing to fulfil an essential service to the nation by hosting

a radioactive waste management facility (and in particular a final repository) do have the

right to added-value measures to develop their social and economic wellbeing. In some

countries these added value measures are placed first and foremost in the context of en-

couraging the acceptance of the facility (e.g. Spain: “incentives for acceptance”; and Ja-

pan: “siting promotion subsidy”). In others the focus is more on rendering aid to the com-

munity (e.g. USA: “financial assistance”; and France: “promotion of the local economy”). In

Belgium, Canada and the UK, both arguments (that of community benefits in view of local

acceptance and community support for the facility, and that of offering additional social and

economic incentives) are combined in the discourse on benefits packages. In the UK, the

situation is particular, as it is faced with a large decommissioning and clean-up programme,

involving a large number of sites. The issue of mitigating potentially adverse social and

economic impact is therefore strongly present in this case. This is why the Energy Act

2004 requires the NDA to consider the socio-economic impacts of its activities on local

communities and permits the NDA to encourage and actively support socio-economic ac-

tivities to the benefit of communities living near its sites.

But in spite of the differences in framing, we can see largely the same mechanisms applied

in many of the EDRAM countries. Among them, a broad categorisation can be made be-

tween six types of benefits:

1. direct and indirect benefits from the facility itself,

2. additional investments in local infrastructure,

3. additional activity,

4. specific subsidies and grants,

5. offering support in the form of training and logistics,

6. setting up community funds for local development.

In the cases of ‘subsidies and grants’ and ‘training and logistics’, the distinction between

socio-economic benefits or added value measures and empowerment measures is not

always clear cut. This is for example the case for the Yucca Mountain project in the U.S.,

where funding is provided for independent technical monitoring in two affected Counties

(Nye and Inyo), as well as oversight assistance and funding for affected units of govern-

ment and affected Tribes8.

Table 2 offers an overview of the various types of benefits in relation to the various RWM

projects in the EDRAM member states (see infra: 1.3).

8 Until present, no license for the construction of the repository facility has been issued. In 2009 the new U.S.

Government decided to re-examine the choice for Yucca Mountain, putting the project temporarily on

hold. However, active exploration of the site has been going on since 1983. Various types of communi-

ty benefits have since then been introduced, based on the principles and mechanisms adopted by the

National Waste Policy Act (1982).


1.3 Tables for section 1

Table 1 - Overview of the Types of Facilities for which Community benefits are being put in

place or considered in the EDRAM member states.

Country CIS Disposal URL or RCF

SL LILW LL ILW & TRU HLW & SF

Belgium P+

Canada P+ 9

Finland P+ O 10

France O O 11

Germany O P+ O

Japan P 12 P 13

Spain P O

Sweden P

Switzerland O P P

UK O / P+ P

USA O P+

Legend: CIS = Central Interim Storage; URL = Underground Research Laboratory; RCF = Rock Charac-

terisation Facility; SL = short-lived; LL = long-lived; O = operational facility; P = planned facility; P+ =

planned facility on known site

9 In Canada, no distinction is made between short and long lived LILW. 10 In Finland, the RCF (ONKALO at the Olkiuoto site) proceeds the disposal facility in the sense that, if re-

sults from the RCF testing is positive, the disposal facility will be excavated directly underneath the

RCF, that will then serve as the entrance to the facility. 11 In France, the URL (located in Bure) is not a nuclear facility (no radioactive material is allowed in this

facility) and will not become part of one, as is the case in Finland. However, the 2006 Planning Act

does prescribe that a disposal facility cannot be sited if the host geological formation has not been pre-

viously investigated through an URL. The future geological disposal facility in France is therefore most

likely to be situated in the proximity of the URL (an area of about 250 km² ranging from the URL’s loca-

tion has been identified for that purpose). 12 In Japan, NUMO currently envisages co-disposal at one site. But the option of separate disposal at two

different sites could be considered, if this would be demanded by potential host communities. 13 In the last phase of the siting procedure, NUMO plans to build a RCF for detailed investigation before

deciding to construct a geological disposal facility at the site in question.


Table 2 - Overview of the types of community benefits made available to (or envisaged for)

communities hosting RWM installations in the EDRAM member states (direct benefits from

the facility itself are not included in this table).

Country Type of project Type of Benefit

Additional investment

Infrastructure Subsidies & Grants

Training & Logistics

Community Funds

Belgium SL LILW P+ A diverse range of community benefits is being developed

Canada LILW

(SL&LL) P+ Concrete agreements, partially in effect

Finland RCF - in

view of GD O

Concrete agreement, partially in

SF P+ effect, due to RCF Taxes

France SL LILW O Legal obliga-

tion Initial grant for siting

URL O Through GIP Legal obliga-

tion GIP

Germany SF & HLW O

URL O

LL LILW P+ Under elaboration idem

Japan TRU P To be determined during siting process

Stipulated by law

To be determined during siting process

HLW P

Spain SF & HLW &

LL LILW P

Planned, pursuant to existing example & legal prescription

idem

SL LILW O

Sweden SF P

Switzerland SF & HLW &

LILW O

HLW & L

ILW P Assump-

tions, based on example

of CIS SL LILW P

UK SL LLW O

SL LLW P+

SF & HLW &

TRU & LL LILW

P Different benefits envisaged. No concrete plans yet, as site is still unknown

USA TRU O Benefits provisions on statutory basis: WIPP Land Withdrawal Act

SF & HLW P+ Benefits provisions on statutory basis: Nuclear Waste Policy Act

Colour coding URL or RCF Central Interim Storage Surface Disposal Deep disposal



2 A diverse range of contexts

When looking at community benefits it is imperative not just to look at the technical projects

they relate to. The local and national context in which these benefits came about and are

or will be implemented must also be taken into account. These contextual elements are

multiple and their causal relation with the shaping of community benefits is often difficult to

determine exactly. Within the context of this study, we therefore did not pursue an in depth

analyses of the relationship between such context elements and the nature of the benefits

made available or being considered in the EDRAM countries.

But even without identifying the exact underlying causal relations, it is important, when try-

ing to understand why certain types of benefits are considered in some counties and not in

others, to bear in mind the sometimes substantial differences in context that exist among

various countries. In the paragraph below, a number of these potentially influential ele-

ments are listed. They can be found both at the country level and at the local level.

An important contextual element (that in itself is also cultural and context related) is the

decision-making process that determined the nature and scope of the benefits. In our

questionnaire, attention was therefore given to the decision-making processes that have

led to agreements on siting and community benefits for the various projects under consid-

eration. In paragraph 2.2 we will look more closely at these processes and whether or not

any parallels are to be found between the EDRAM countries.

2.1 Potentially influential elements

At the country level, relevant context elements that can have a substantial impact on the

views of relevant stakeholder groups on community benefits include, among others:

the political structure and climate of the country in question;

the size of the country’s nuclear programme;

the status and role of the RWM agency or implementer of the facility14;

the predominant attitude towards nuclear energy production;

the general level of trust in government and authorities;

the (pre)existence of a legal framework for community benefits (for nuclear or other

large scale infrastructure projects);

the impact local politicians have on the national decision-making level;

…

14 Of the 11 EDRAM member states: 7 have implementers that are government administrations or agencies

(Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, Spain, the UK and USA); 3 have implementers that are owned by

the industry (Finland, Sweden and Switzerland); in Canada both situations exist, but in the case re-

ferred to here (deep disposal of LILW in Kincardine), it is the industry that is the implementer.


At the local level, views on community benefits are determined by elements such as:

the presence of and familiarity with other nuclear facilities;

the population density and the size of the host community and its neighbours;

the relative poverty or prosperity of the host communities as compared to other com-

munities in the region and to the nationwide average;

the centrality or isolation of the host communities in terms of geography, mobility and

political power;

…

The limited contextual information gathered for this study indicates that the nature, dimen-

sion and scope of the various benefits are not only determined by the specific nature of the

concerned installations, or the size of a country’s nuclear programme, but also by the so-

cial and political context, as well as the needs and requirements of the host communities.

To illustrate the differences between the EDRAM countries, we list in tables 3 and 4 varia-

tions in terms of population density, size and ‘nuclear’ character of the host communities in

question for those facilities that are already operational or planned at a known site (see

infra: 2.3).

2.2 Decision-making on community benefits

If we assume that the social, economic and political context in which a radioactive waste

management facility is being sited has a substantial impact on the nature of a community

benefit for each specific situation, then the decision-making process through which this

benefit is determined, is also of importance. While decision-making processes in them-

selves are also shaped by the social, economic and political context, a number of common

denominators can nevertheless be found. In the questionnaire for EDRAM members, the

questions relating to decision-making focussed on: the point in time where benefits are

determined; the decision-making level at which they are determined; and the basis for de-

termining the range of the agreed community benefits.

In all EDRAM member states, negotiations on community benefits form, in one way or

other, an integral – albeit not necessarily formal – part of facility siting procedures.

The distinction we make between formal and informal, does not hold a value judgement. It

simply refers to the extent to which official siting procedures and decision-making proc-

esses have incorporated the notion of community benefits. This is not often the case, for at

least two reasons. First it is rarely the case that siting legislation and procedures are

uniquely developed for radioactive waste management facilities. Second, community bene-

fits are to a large extent site specific, which makes it difficult to provide criteria and proce-

dures for decision-making at a national level. Nevertheless, it appears that increasingly a

general framework or basic principles concerning community benefits is provided for. Ex-

amples would be: (a) the Japanese Act on the siting promotion subsidy of electric power

plants and RWM facilities; (b) the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in the U.S.; (c) the Spanish

Law setting up the allocation of funds to local communities hosting nuclear power plants


and RWM facilities; (d) the recently adopted Governmental siting procedure in Switzerland,

introducing a specific procedure for defining possible financial compensation for host

communities; or (e) the UK Government’s 2008 White Paper “Managing Radioactive

Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal”, setting out objectives

for the investments a host community might benefit from (a community benefits package),

while at the same time leaving the exact content of these benefits to be determined

through negotiations with the concerned community as part of the implementing process

(an engagement package). However, even where negotiations on community benefits are

not a formal part of official siting procedures, they are not necessarily hidden or considered

unimportant.

With or without a basic legal framework, all siting negotiations in the first instance seem

to be concentrated mainly at the local level. This first step is characterised by an ex-

pression of interest from one or more potential host communities and by negotiations on

the conditions for acceptance. These negotiations generally run in parallel with (prelimi-

nary) site investigations and feasibility studies. The extent to which both are linked is an

interesting question, but is not considered here in this report. In some cases, when an

agreement is reached, this is then guaranteed by means of a contractual agreement be-

tween the implementer and the host community or communities, or between the electricity

producers (e.g. in Switzerland 15) and the host community. In other countries, this agree-

ment (contractual or otherwise) needs confirmation at the national level through some form

of decision in principle or legal act, that the site is to be the future host for the facility in

question and that these will be the accompanying community benefits. In all cases, the

‘hosting agreements’, are conditional on regulatory approval.

In most cases, negotiations on community benefits are concluded before licensing.

Even though key milestones for the realisation of some of the benefits are sometimes de-

termined further in the process (e.g. receipt of construction licence or operating licence),

size and scope of all benefits are fixed at the moment the agreement comes into force.

Only in Spain, the U.S. and France, do we see some exception to this general rule. In

Spain, a legal framework for community funding exists at the national level, so negotiations

in the pre-siting and pre-licensing phase focus on other types of benefits, such as a medi-

cal centre or support for local schools. Only after licensing, contractual agreements are

made with the host communities on the allocation of the funds. In the U.S., the types of

community benefits are determined by law (the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act of 1992 and the

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982). However, in 2003 the WIPP16 Acceleration Fund came

into force, which was negotiated at the national level, to ameliorate the downward impact

when disposal operations slowed earlier than originally planned. In the case of the URL in

Bure (France), a pre-GIP (Public Interest Group)17 funding structure was negotiated at the

15 The case referred to here, is the ZWILAG central interim storage facility in Würenlingen, operational since

2001, with a capacity for 27,000 m³ of LLW, 11,000 m³ of ILW, and 3,600 tU of vitrified HLW and spent

fuel (some 200 HLW/SF containers). 16 WIPP stands for Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. In this facility, the U.S. disposes of its defense-related transu-

ranic waste. WIPP has been operational since March 1999. It is situated near Carlsbad in Eddy County

(New Mexico). 17 The GIP (Groupement d’intérêt public) is a public body at district level that is responsible for the man-

agement and allocation of the funding to induce economic development measures in the area around

the Bure URL (the GIP fund). Two GIPs have been created in 2000: one for the Meuse district (May

2000), and one for the Haute-Marne district (August 2000). However, already during the siting of the


district level and put in place prior to siting. After site confirmation, but before the licence

application, the conditions were re-negotiated, again at the district level. After licensing, the

current GIP fund was put in place following negotiations at the district level and in national

parliament. The funding principles were determined by national law (Waste Act – 1991).

After construction, the conditions were again re-negotiated at the national level, between

local representatives and the state authorities and brought into force by a new national law

(Planning Act – 2006).

This makes the ‘Bure process’ the only one within any of the EDRAM countries in which

community benefits are defined in view of particular stages, related to different phases in

the project. Although not fully comparable, recent developments around the LLW reposi-

tory near the village of Drigg in West Cumbria (UK) can also be characterised as a form of

‘phased’ decision-making on community benefits. Here agreement was reached between

the NDA, the UK Government and the local community on setting up a Community Fund in

relation to the development of a new vault at the existing facility. In most other cases,

benefits are determined partially up front and partially in the first stages of the process

(namely before licensing). Interventions at the national level, appear in most cases to fol-

low and confirm agreements on the local level, between the implementer and the host

community. In Germany, benefits related to the Gorleben 18 facility were determined

through negotiations between the Federal Government and the authorities of the con-

cerned Länder, Districts and municipalities. An administrative agreement concluded the

negotiations. The same process is currently ongoing for the Konrad19 facility for LILW,

which is already fully licensed and under construction.

The range of community benefits in most cases relates to the distance between the benefi-

ciaries and the site, and seems determined by site specific criteria, which are mainly socio-

economic in nature (e.g. the 312 municipalities with drawing rights from the GIP fund, be-

longing to a particular socio-economic area around the URL of Bure, determined by the

French 2006 Planning Act and related Decrees). Often these criteria are stipulated by law.

In all cases, these (socio-economic) criteria of distance, in practice, are applied to entire

administrative entities.

It therefore seems reasonable to say that the nature and scope of community benefits

are predominantly determined through negotiations between the implementer and

the host community, with the host community consisting of the host municipality and its

immediate neighbours. When benefits are made available to a broader area, these tend to

be determined through separate negotiations, or at a later stage in the process. Only in the

U.S., would there appear to be more of a ‘regional’ than a ‘local’ approach, as benefits, and

in particularly financial benefits, are directed at the State and County level. Although in the

case of WIPP, the city of Carlsbad does seem to be one of the main beneficiaries.

laboratory (1994 – 1999) and before the creation of the GIPs, funding was made available to the con-

cerned districts to promote the local economy and support the environment (the pre-GIP fund). 18 The Gorleben site hosts 2 interim storage facilities (for LILW since 1985 and for HLW & SF since 1995),

an exploration mine for future disposal of HLW & SF (since 1979) and a pilot conditioning plant (since

2005). 19 The Kondrad facility is to become Germany’s deep geological repository for LILW (both short and long

lived).


2.3 Tables for section 2

Table 3 - Variations in the character of the host municipalities of various RWM installations

that are operational or planned on a known site

Country Type of installation Other nuclear

facilities on site Host Community Immediate neighbours

Population Size in km² Population Size in km²

Population density around site: 0 – 50 inhabitants within 10 km radius

Spain

El Cabril

(# 35)

surface disposal of short lived LILW (op-erational since 1992)

no

Hornachuelos Fuenteobejuna

4,678 906 5,434 591

Navas Concepcion

1,831 63

Alanis

1,878 280

USA

WIPP

(# 1 ranch)

deep disposal of TRU waste (operational since 1999)

no

Carlsbad Eddy County20

25,000 40 50,000 700

USA

Yucca Mountain

(# 0)

YM Repository Site for deep disposal SF & HLW (exploration since 1983)

no

Nye County 5 neighbouring counties within 84 km range 46,755 47,000

Nearest residents in Town of Amargosa Valley (1,407) at 22km

Population density around site: 80 – 400 inhabitants within 5 km radius

Finland

ONKALO

(# 100)

RCF in view of deep disposal of SF

(excavation started in 2004)

nuclear power plant

wet storage of SF

LILW repository

LILW waste treat-ment facility

Eurajoki n.a.

(ONKALO and other facili-ties situated at Olkiluoto peninsula - 5 km² and 30 inhabitants)

6,000 459

Sweden

Forsmark

(# 84)

Deep disposal of SF (planned)

LILW repository

nuclear power plant

Östhammar -

21,000 1,471

France

Bure

(# 390)

URL (operational since 1999) no

Bure Saudron

100 18.5 < 50 9

Population density around site: 500 – 1,200 inhabitants within 5 km radius

UK

Dounreay (# 550)

LLW facility (planned)

nulcear research site with 3 experi-mental reactors and over 180 re-lated facilities, now being decommis-sioned; waste treatment facility for purpose of de-commissioning the site

Caithness and North-Sutherland

The Dounreay site is situ-ated in the larger area of

Caithness-Sutherland (39,000 inhabitants on 7,800 km²). The host

community consist of a number of small villages,

scattered around the area. Nearest residents: 7

households (16 inhabi-tants) at about 0.5 km from

the Dounreay site.

26,000 6,500

…/

20 WIPP’s host community is technically Eddy County, which consists of the City of Carlsbad (25,000 inhabi-

tants), the municipalities of Artesia (15,000 inhabitants) and Loving (1,500 inhabitants) and some 3,500

people living in rural area bordering Carlsbad.


/…

Country Type of installation Other nuclear

facilities on site Host Community Immediate neighbours

Population Size in km² Population Size in km²

Germany

Gorleben

(# 900)

central interim stor-age for LILW (opera-tional since 1985) & SF and HLW (opera-tional since 1995)

exploration mine

pilot conditioning plant

Gorleben Gartow

641 21.25 1,437 28.28

France

Centre de l’Aube

(# 1,180)

surface disposal of short lived LILW (op-erational since 1992) no

Soulaine Epothémont

267 21 175 10

Ville-aux-Bois

10 6

Population density around site: 500 – 3 000 inhabitants within 2 km radius

Belgium

Dessel

(# 800)

surface disposal of short lived LILW (planned)

CIS LILW & HLW

URL & nuclear

research centre (SCK/CEN)

uranium & mox fuel production

…

Dessel Mol

8,865 27 33,060 114

Retie

10,485 48

Geel

35,502 110

UK

LLWR

(# 1,200)

surface disposal of short lived LLW (op-erational since 1959; new developments in 2009)

Sellafield nuclear site at 6 km

(nearest village) Drigg Seascale

Parish Council area (total size and population)

450 20.7 1,750 7

Settlement area (actual village size and population)

207 0.5 1,715 1.5

The host community for the facility is the Borough of Copeland (Cumbria County): 69,318 inhabitants; 731.7 km²

Switzerland

ZWILAG

(# 1,500)

central interim stor-age facility for LILW, SF and HLW (opera-tional since 2001)

nuclear power plant

nuclear research centre (PSI)

Würenlingen Döttingen

4,000 9.4 3,500 7

Böttstein

3,700 7.5

Villigen

2,000 11

Germany

Konrad

(# 2,000)

deep disposal of LILW (planned) No

Salzgitter Braunschweig

103,543 224 260,000 921

Canada

Kincardine

(# 2,700)

deep disposal of LILW (planned)

nuclear power plant

LILW interim stor-age

dry storage SF

Kincardine Saugeen Shores

11,173 538 11,720 171

Huron Kinloss

6,515 441

Arran-Elderslie

6,747 460

Brockton

9,641 565


Table 4 - Overview of population density (2 - 5 - 10 km radius) around the sites in the table 3

Facility Type of installation Population density around site, within ....

2 km radius 5 km radius 10 km radius

ZWILAG (CH) Central Interim Storage 1,500 30,000 -

El Cabril (ES) Surface disposal (LILW) 0 0 35

Centre de l’Aube (FR) Surface disposal (LILW) 188 1,180 4,700

Dounreay* (UK) Surface disposal (LLW) ±50 550 9,000

LLWR (UK) semi Surface disposal (LLW) 1,200 7,500 29,850

Dessel (BE) Surface disposal (LILW) 800 36,000 80,000

WIPP (US) Deep disposal (TRU) 0 0 0

Forsmark** (SE) Deep disposal (SF) 0 84 480

Kincardine (CA) Deep disposal (LILW) 2,700 4,650 7,350

Konrad (DE) Deep disposal (LILW) 2,000 - 100,000

Yucca Mountain (US) Exploration for deep disposal of HLW & SF 0 0 0

Gorleben (DE) Exploration for deep disposal of HLW & SF 640 900 2,000

ONKALO (FI) RCF for deep disposal of SF 0 < 100 < 2,000

Bure (FR) URL for deep disposal of HLW 62 390 3,140

* for Dounreay, there was no data for the 10 km radius; it is assumed here to be comparable to the 12 km radius for which official data were available

** for Forsmark, there was no data for the 2 km radius, it is assumed here to be comparable to the 1 km radius for which official data were available



3 Six types of community benefits

As indicated before, broadly six types of benefits are made available (or considered) for

host communities throughout the EDRAM countries. We will not make a comparison be-

tween countries at a detailed level, as this is of no real use and risks being perceived as

judgemental. But we will provide general outlines of what benefits consist of, and give ex-

amples from different countries, to illustrate. For an overview of community benefits al-

ready in place to support communities living next to operational facilities, refer to Annex 2.

3.1 Direct and indirect benefits from the facility itself

Benefits from the facility itself generally include employment, as well as local procurement

and subcontracting.

The information received on the number of direct and indirect jobs created by the various

facilities is extremely diverse. Numbers range from a few dozen to some 200 additional

jobs during the operational phase of a repository facility; and from a few 100 to some 2.000

for the construction of such a facility. In some cases, construction fully precedes the opera-

tion of the installation, creating mass employment in the first 5 to 10 years and settling at a

lower level for the entire period of operation to follow (generally foreseen between 30 and

100 years). In other cases (in particularly deep disposal), construction is spread out over a

longer period, running partially in parallel with operating the facility. Here the total employ-

ment related to the facility obviously is more spread out over time. In some countries, spe-

cific effort is made to attract locally based staff. This is for example the case for the con-

struction of the URL in Bure (France), where a local job office was opened to recruit local

staff. In Spain about 40% of the 1.800 construction workforce for the El Cabril facility21 was

recruited locally. In relatively small communities, the impact of a waste management facil-

ity on local employment rates can be substantial: e.g. in Carlsbad (USA) today about 1/5 of

the Carlsbad workforce is employed by WIPP, making up for more than ¼ of all Carlsbad

wages.

Figures for local procurement and subcontracting are even more diverse, and do not

allow for general syntheses. The term local in this context has in many cases a more re-

gional connotation. This is in contrast to the use of the term local in relation to other bene-

fits, such as investment in local infrastructure or local development funding, where in gen-

eral a more restricted interpretation is given. Based on the data related to facilities that are

currently in operation, we can nevertheless conclude, that implementers spend several

millions of euros in the immediate surroundings of their facilities and between about 20 to

50% of all procurement in the broader region (province, district, state …).

21 The El Cabril facility hosts two surface disposal facilities: one for short-lived LILW, with a capacity of

100,000 m³ (operational since 1992) and one for VLLW (very low level waste), with a planned capacity

of 130,000 m³ (operational since 2008).


3.2 Additional investment in local infrastructure

In quite a few countries we can see specific investment in local infrastructure. Most have to

do with road improvements (in the first instance construction or upgrading of access roads),

the upgrading of utilities, and renovation projects. Another type of related transport infra-

structure project, is the fully equipped quay that is planned to be constructed on the canal

in the adjacent municipality of Mol, for the transport of construction material for the reposi-

tory in Dessel (Belgium)22.

Road improvements and upgrading of utilities are directly linked to the facility, but often

have a complementary impact on the local community, for example by creating or upgrad-

ing an additional connecting road for commuters. The same applies to other transport re-

lated infrastructure, like the above mentioned quay. Although mainly destined to serve the

RWM facility, it could also be used by other companies in the vicinity.

The restoration of buildings tends to be more of an explicit additional benefit, even though

an indirect link to the facility can be present. In Bure, for example, Andra invested in the

upgrading of local buildings that were later used to house the URL’s local employment of-

fice and the CLIS secretariat23. In Eurajoki (Finland)24, Posiva contributed to the restoration

of an old mansion, previously the municipality’s home for the elderly, and supported the

municipality in developing a new infrastructure. Posiva now has the mansion on a 40 years

lease from the municipality, occupying it partially for office space and meeting facilities and

subletting other parts (among others a restaurant) for local use.

3.3 Additional activity

With this type of benefit, we refer to initiatives that create additional economic, social, cul-

tural or other local activity that is not necessarily or not directly related to the facility. This

could be spin-off research and development activity, the localisation of a supplier that

serves a broader range of customers than the RW facility in question, and so on. Often, an

encapsulation plant or post conditioning facility is located (as part of the same process) at

the same site as a disposal facility. Such facilities are therefore not considered to bring

additional activity, and data concerning costs and employment are included in the overall

totals for the disposal facilities.

In the EDRAM countries, we find ‘additional activity’ to encompass among others: training

and research centres, meeting and conference centres, a medical centre (Spain), archives

(France), an environmental monitoring station (France), a communication and science cen-

tre (Belgium), an information centre for the local nature reserve (Spain), a prototype bio-

mass-fuel facility (France). Some of this activity is, or should be, economically viable and

22 The planned facility in Dessel is a surface repository for short-lived LILW, with a capacity of 70,000 m³. 23 The CLIS is a statutory local follow-up committee which each nuclear facility in France is obliged by law to

establish in order to inform the local community (represented by local politicians and local civil society)

of the facility’s activity. The same applies for the URL in Bure, which in principle is not a nuclear facility,

but does fall under the same legislation. 24 Eurajoki has agreed to host Finland’s deep disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel. In the preparation

phase for this repository, a rock characterization facility (named ONKALO) is being constructed on the

future site. The RCF will later be incorporated in the repository.


can become self-supporting in the long term (e.g. plans in Belgium to attract a supplier of

pre-cast concrete containers to participate in a public-private partnership and establish a

local factory that will serve both the RW facility and other customers). Some have recurrent

or annual operational costs that can be carried (fully or partially) by third parties. In both

cases, the benefit lies in the support for initiating the activity. In other situations, the activity

is so specific that the recurrent or annual operational costs are also (or in any case mainly)

to be carried by the implementer or ‘sponsor’ (e.g. the technology centre ENRESA plans

as an additional activity for its central interim storage facility (Spain); the EDF and Areva

archives in Bure; or the communication and science centre to accompany the Belgian

LILW repository). In Finland, we find a particular form of additional activity. In view of the

rock characterisation facility and the future repository for spent fuel, Posiva moved its

headquarters from Helsinki to Eurajoki. The host community thus attracted a company with

some 80 employees, part of which moved to the area, while others commute on a weekly

basis.

Important to note is that visitor centres are generally not considered separate infrastructure

or activity, but an integral part of the facility. Although they can also offer some broader

community or other services (for example conference facilities), they tend to be closely

related to and located on the site. For instance, TVO and Posiva opened a new visitor cen-

tre for the Olkiluoto site in 2006 with an interactive scientific exhibition, cafeteria and con-

ference facilities, including a large auditorium and a few smaller workshop rooms. Every

year, it receives 20,000 visitors through organised visits. In the USA, the Department of

Energy (DOE) operated until October 2008 three information centres in the state of Ne-

vada with repository-related exhibits and take-away information on the Yucca Mountain

project, providing at the same time information and educational programs on environ-

mental issues, Native American culture, and other general science and technology topics.

All, however, have subsequently closed, due to lack of funding (because of the new U.S.

administration cutting down the Yucca Mountain budget). Like the DOE information centres,

the communication and science centre planned in Dessel (Belgium) could also be consid-

ered a more hybrid project, as the local community explicitly asked not to just have a visitor

centre, but to make that something that could be of broader service to the community in

terms of clustering and distributing information, attracting tourist activity, creating additional

meeting space for local and more wide ranging use, etc.

3.4 Specific subsidies and grants

The category ‘subsidies and grants’ encompasses benefits such as investment in educa-

tion and educational projects (e.g. Spain, U.S.), subsidies to socio-cultural institutions and

projects (e.g. Germany, U.S., Japan25, UK – Dounreay Community Fund for small-scale

community projects), support for specific projects with an economic purpose (e.g. Can-

ada26, U.S., Japan) and guarantees with respect to real estate prices (Canada and Swe-

25 Japan plans two deep geological repositories: one for vitrified HLW (40,000 m³) and one for long lived

LLW (19,000 m³). No site has been identified yet, and the options of either co-disposal or separate dis-

posal at the same or even on two different sites remain open. 26 The Canadian example referred to here, is the future deep geological repository for LILW (160,000 m³) in

Bruce County, near Kincardine. The site is currently being explored and construction planned in 2012.


den27. An example of economic incentives is a one-time contribution that was given to the

local agricultural community and to the County for investment in projects related to tourism

following acceptance for the construction of a LILW repository by the host community Kin-

cardine in Canada. In Japan the concept of economic incentives is very broadly interpreted

and the law on the siting promotion subsidy for power plants and radioactive waste facili-

ties already provides “regional outreach measures” already during the siting process which

can be used to promote regional development and local welfare, to support regional indus-

try, and so on, as well as to support activities “to promote understanding”.

A particular type of subsidies or grants, are initiatives related to environmental monitoring

(U.S.), nature conservation and environmental improvement (Spain, Germany, U.S.) and

baseline health studies (U.S., Belgium). It could be argued that these do not fully count as

added value or additional benefits, for environmental monitoring should be an integral part

of facility management and the operator’s safety strategy. However, to the extent that the

above mentioned initiatives exceed these basic requirements (as appears to be the case

with e.g. the health studies), or enable the communities in question to set up their own

monitoring programme and review the implementer’s work, with the help of experts of their

choosing (as was the intention of e.g. the Nye County ‘Science and Verification Pro-

gramme’ for the Yucca Mountain project), these could be regarded as measures that bring

added value to the community.

3.5 Support through training and logistics

Where ‘training and logistics’ are concerned, we distinguish initiatives related to opera-

tional safety and monitoring of the surroundings and initiatives aimed at the local world of

business.

The group of initiatives related to environmental monitoring and operational safety, again

may -prove a bit delicate to define as benefits, in the sense that they do link up closely to

what could be considered measures that any good operator would have to take anyway.

So whether such initiatives classify as ‘benefits’, or as ‘standard procedure’, depends on

the appreciation of the receiving party and the extent to which the training activity and lo-

gistic support in question have a finality that lies beyond ensuring the safe operation of the

facility. Examples found among the EDRAM countries of this type of initiatives are: emer-

gency response training and local training on radioprotection (e.g. U.S., France, Spain);

the making available of equipment to local fire departments and technical services (e.g.

emergency service vehicles in the U.S., or a snowplough in France).

Initiatives aimed at local business development and the promotion of regional employment

often consist of training and supporting in various ways to local companies so that they are

better equipped to meet procurement requirements (e.g. France, Spain, U.S.). Other initia-

tives focus on the preservation and transfer of operational know-how and the creation of

centres of excellence on waste management, or broader, related issues, such as energy

(e.g. Japan, Belgium, Spain, and Canada).

27 The Swedish project referred to is the future deep geological repository for spent fuel (12,000 tU) in

Östhammar, near the existing LILW repository of Forsmark, for which a license application is currently

being prepared.


3.6 Community funds for local development

In nearly all countries there are concrete initiatives (in some cases provided for by the law)

for the setting up of local funds for socio-economic development. Only in the Scandinavian

countries this is not the case, or at least it is interpreted differently. In Finland, property

taxes are higher for nuclear facilities. Host communities can impose a tax of up to 2.5% of

property value for facilities that, according to the local taxation authority, are considered

nuclear installations (as compared to 0.5% for average business infrastructure). Therefore,

with the future disposal facility (and the new nuclear power station) at the Olkiluoto site, the

municipality of Eurajoki will be receiving a considerable additional amount in property taxes,

which is considered there by all parties as a substantial additional value provided by the

repository to the local community. In Sweden, waste manager, SKB selected Forsmark28 in

Östhammar as the site for the final repository for spent nuclear fuel on June 3rd, 2009. The

encapsulation plant, however, will be co-located with the central interim storage facility

(Clab) in the municipality of Oskarshamn29. Both municipalities are considerd an integral

part of the Swedish nuclear waste management system. Particularly in view of the long

timeframes for operation, SKB, its owners and the two municipalities agreed on the impor-

tance of the RWM facilities being embedded in a well functioning local society with positive

development. It was therefore negotiated that certain “added values” should be brought to

the two municipalities. Rather than setting up a specific fund for each of the communities

concerned, it was agreed that added values will be created (by SKB, its owners and the

two municipalities) up to an amount of 1.5 to 2 billion (about 150 to 200 million EUR) over a

period up to the start of operation of the facilities. Investments are mainly envisaged in

areas such as infrastructure and development of the local labour market. Prior to the site

selection, agreement was reached between all parties, that 25% of the amount will be

invested in the community hosting the repository facility (Östhammar), and 75% in the

other community (Oskarshamn).

The reach of the funds (both operational and planned) is usually limited to the host mu-

nicipality and adjacent municipalities. Occasionally, this is extended to a wider area (e.g.

France – URL at Bure) or regional authorities (e.g. Districts in France, Länder or Districts in

Germany, Cantons in Switzerland and States in the U.S.). In Canada, a one off lump sum

payment was given to the remaining 3 municipalities within the county that are not direct

neighbours to the host community, Kincardine. Nevertheless, in all cases, a ‘preferential

treatment’ (a larger share, additional drawing rights, ...) applies to the host municipality and

its immediate neighbours.

Most funds have a broad range of application in the field of local socio-economic devel-

opment. In Spain, Switzerland and Canada, where the funding is directly provided to the

entitled municipalities, no restrictions appear to be set on how the funds might be used.

The same applies to the “payments comparable to taxes” the DOE makes available to the

State, host, and eligible neighbouring counties in relation to the Yucca Mountain Project

28 The Forsmark site already hosts Sweden’s underground repository for short-lived radioactive waste

(commissioned in 1988) and a nuclear power plant. 29 Apart from the Swedish central interim storage facility for SF (Clab), the municipality of Oskarshamn also

hosts the Äspö underground research laboratory and rock characterization facility, the SKB canister la-

boratory, and a nuclear power plant.


(USA)30. The French GIP-Fund also has a broad scope. Although it has its focus on devel-

oping local economy, employment and welfare, the fund also deals with for example social

and environmental issues. The local development fund to accompany the LILW repository

in Belgium, as well as the West Cumbria Community fund for the extension of the LLWR

facility near the village of Drigg, and the Caithness & North Sutherland Fund for the new

LLW facility at the Dounreay site are currently being developed following a similar ap-

proach. A final example in this category is the “WIPP acceleration fund” set up between the

City of Carlsbad and the New Mexico Congressional delegation for projects related to eco-

nomic development, infrastructure and education in the city of Carlsbad (USA). This so-

called acceleration fund was intended to provide funds for the city to use for economic de-

velopment and infrastructure in order to offset a decline in employment when WIPP slowed

operations earlier than originally planned due to accelerating the disposal rate.

Next to these broader development funds, there are also more specific funds made

available, directed at supporting (road) infrastructure projects and oversight activity. Such

exist in Germany, where the funding provided by the Federal Government to the con-

cerned state, district and municipalities in the case of the Gorleben CIS and exploration

mine is mainly used to support infrastructure projects. For the WIPP facility, a specific eco-

nomic assistance grant was created by legislation for the duration of 14 years to begin be-

fore shipments of waste started), to offer economic assistance to the State of New Mexico.

This economic assistance started at 14 million USD 1998 (16 million EUR 2008) and was

to increase in line with inflation each year. It later became known as the “road fund”, which

is used by the State Highway Department (New Mexico) to offset impacts of transportation

of radioactive waste across its territory and to upgrade access roads to the facility.

To conclude, it is worth mentioning here that, in addition to the local development fund

regulated by Spanish law, ENRESA in 1990 has set up a foundation on its own initiative, to

support projects in the field of social welfare and socio-economic development, training

and culture, improvement of the environment and increasing awareness of environmental

issues. This foundation differs from the other funding initiatives mentioned above, as it is

not specifically site related. About 50% of the projects supported each year by the Founda-

tion are to be situated in communities around ENRESA facilities. The other 50% concern

nationwide activities.

Operating mechanisms for local development funds

In most cases, local funds in the framework of nuclear repositories are completely or partly

guaranteed by the law or other government provisions (e.g. France – URL at Bure, Spain,

Japan, U.S.). In Switzerland these legal provisions are supplemented by a specific contrac-

tual agreement between the municipalities in question and the electricity producers. In

Germany, funding provided to entities around the Gorleben site (URL and CIS) is based on

administrative agreements between those entities and the Federal Government. In France

(in the case of the repository in Soulaine), Canada (Kincardine) and the UK (LLWR and

Dounreay facilities) an agreement was signed between the operator of the site and the

relevant municipalities.

30 As the DOE is a Federal Government Agency, local units of government cannot levy any taxes on its

activity. Therefore, an arrangement was made that the DOE would pay out per annum a comparable

amount to the eligible local authorities, as if it had been a private company paying activity taxes for

managing the YM facility.


Where management structure and operational modalities are concerned, there is quite

a bit of variety. In some cases the funds are managed by the waste manager or operator of

the site. Every year (or at specific agreed times), this waste manager or operator pays out

certain sums to the municipalities involved, and they decide autonomously on how to

spend them (e.g. Spain, Canada, U.S.). The WIPP acceleration fund (USA) is a variant on

this, where the DOE, a federal government body, manages the funds and pays out sums

based on project financing. The acceleration fund is directed by the U.S. Congress in its

appropriations process to the DOE. DOE does not specify the amount. Rather, the City of

Carlsbad makes requests to the New Mexico Congressional delegation, who then work

within the appropriations committee to authorize a consensus amount in each budget year

process. Somewhat similar was the case for the investment fund that accompanied the

surface disposal facility in Soulaine (France). Here too, a politically negotiated amount was

managed and allocated by Andra based on project proposals. In other cases the funds are

managed by an entity specially founded for this purpose, which manages the funds and

pays out the amounts to the entitled parties based on project financing (e.g. France – URL

at Bure, and the community and local development funds as they are being put in place in

the UK - for LLWR near the village of Drigg, and for the Dounreay facilities- and in Bel-

gium). In addition, in France a follow-up committee has been set up at the national level to

oversee the process and the correct course of events. In France, this “Haute Comité” con-

sists of the Minister of Industry, the CEOs of the electricity companies, local senators and

Members of Parliament, the presidents of the Districts in question and the chairman of An-

dra. In Spain, a follow-up committee operates under the supervision of the Ministry of In-

dustry, Tourism and Trade. Finally, in Switzerland no real fund is established, but the

waste producers annually pay an agreed sum to the municipalities in question for a period

of time established by contract.

Where dimensions are concerned, few concrete similarities can be established between

all these fund systems. First, they are linked to strongly varying types of installations, with

very different investment and operational costs. Second, they are situated in a great variety

of demographic, socio-economic and political contexts. To illustrate this, we refer to the

examples below.

In Spain (surface disposal SL LILW – El Cabril) the host municipality and 3 neighbour-

ing municipalities receive a certain sum every year. Together, these municipalities

have 31,314 inhabitants, 35 of whom live within a 10-km radius of the site. In 2008 a

total of 1.24 million EUR was paid out to the 4 municipalities. The host municipality re-

ceived 590,000 EUR. A comparable amount (determined annually by the Minister in

charge based on legally prescribed criteria) has been paid out annually since 1992

(when the facility became operational) and will continue to be paid out until the mo-

ment the site can be released again. [i.e. for the host municipality (4,678 inhabitants):

~125 EUR 2008/capita/year throughout the existence of the facility – in principle for

300 years]

In Switzerland (installation for central storage – ZWILAG) since 1989 an annual

amount of 1.1 million EUR (figure for 2008, indexed annually) has been made avail-

able to the host municipality Würenlingen and its 3 neighbouring municipalities31 and

31 At the time of the agreement, Würenlingen had 4 neighbours, but as off 2005 the small community of Stilli

(0,57 km²) has been integrated in the neighbouring municipality of Villigen.


this for a period of 25 years. Würenlingen (4,000 inhabitants) receives about 60% of

this. For 2008 this amounted to around 670,000 EUR. A total of approximately 1,500

inhabitants live within a 2-km radius around the ZWILAG site, the nearest 1 km from

the site. [i.e. for the host municipality: ~167 EUR 2008/capita/ year for 25 years]

In Canada (deep disposal LILW – Kincardine) 24 million CAD 2004 (16.41 million EUR

2008) are made available to the host municipality and its 4 neighbours over a period of

30 years. A total of approximately 7,350 inhabitants currently live within a 10-km radius

around the future site, the nearest 3 km from the site. 62% of the total amount (ap-

proximately 14.9 million CAD) goes to host municipality Kincardine (11,173 inhabi-

tants). [i.e. for the host municipality ~1,330 CAD 2004 (910 EUR 2008)/capita over a

period of 30 years; or on average 30 EUR 2008/capita/year for 30 years]

In the U.S.(deep disposal TRU – WIPP) since 2003, 3,5 million USD 2003 (2.85 million

EUR 2008) has been made available annually to the City of Carlsbad to invest in pro-

jects related to infrastructure, education and economic development. The City of

Carlsbad has about 25,000 inhabitants, none of whom lives within a 10 km radius of

the disposal facility. The fund is managed by the DOE and allocation is based on con-

crete project proposals. The yearly provisions will continue as long as Congress con-

tinues to appropriate funds each year. DOE does not seek authorization for these

funds. They are a result of Carlsbad leaders making requests of the New Mexico Con-

gressional delegation. [i.e. ~120 USD 2003 (120 EUR 2008)/capita/year over an esti-

mated period of about 40 years]

In France (surface disposal SL LILW – Centre de l’Aube) between 1989 and 1997, 5

million EUR 1999 (5.98 million EUR 2008) were made available for the financing of

local projects. The largest share of this (~3.5 million EUR 2008) went to projects in the

host municipality Soulaine and its two neighbours, which together have 452 inhabi-

tants. The first house is located 4 km from the site. [i.e. for the three municipalities to-

gether: ~7,750 EUR 2008/capita over a period of 10 years; or on average 775 EUR

2008/capita/year for 10 years]

In France (URL – Bure), during the construction phase of the URL (1999-2006), an

annual amount of 20 million EUR 2006 (166 million EUR 2008 in total) was made

available mainly to the 33 municipalities within a 10-km radius around the access to

the lab, together approximately 5,000 inhabitants, the nearest of whom live 2 km from

the site. [i.e. on average for the 33 municipalities: ~4,000 EUR 2008/capita per year for

8 years; or on average 500 EUR 2008/capita/year during 8 years]

Since 2007 this amount has been increased to 40 million EUR per year. The number

of municipalities with a drawing right has also been raised drastically (determined by

law at 312 municipalities within an area defined on the basis of socio-economic criteria,

together ~100,000 inhabitants). From this fund, the 33 most involved municipalities di-

rectly receive a fixed amount (~415 EUR 2008/capita/year). In addition they can, as

any of the other 312 municipalities, submit projects for financing.

Remark: The URL at Bure is not a nuclear facility. The use of radioactive material in

this facility is in fact prohibited by law. In 2006, however, a law stipulated that a deep

repository could only be built where the host geological formation had previously been

sufficiently studied in an URL. Thus, in this light the URL can be seen as a forerunner


of a repository. Concretely, it is being studied today where – within an area of 250 km²

around the URL – geological disposal could be implemented.

Overview of modalities

The table below gives an overview of the modalities for the various funds currently in place.

FUNDS FOR LOCAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

GIP fund – Bure (France)

• Officially established sum (periodically negotiated politically at the national level) • Managed by the Districts via political-administrative body (GIP): 2 GIP in place, 1 for the District of

Meuse and 1 for the District of Haute Marne (each receives half of the allocated amount) • A total of 312 municipalities with drawing rights (together around 100,000 inhabitants – 57,000 of which

are concentrated in 3 larger municipalities) • Specific rights for 33 municipalities with territory within a 10-km radius of the URL (~ 5,000 inhabitants) • Grants based on project proposals (20% self-financing) • In addition, the 33 municipalities within a 10-km radius receive a fixed annual amount per capita directly • Practice followed up nationally by the Haute Comité • Duration: indefinite

Financial incentives for local communities – ZWILAG (Switzerland)

• Annual lump sum payments: indexed per year and revised every five years, related to electricity and consumer prices

• Based on a contractual agreement between the electricity producers and all municipalities within a 2 km radius from the facility (i.e. host + 3 neighbours)

• Contributions paid out directly to relevant municipalities in addition to regular taxes • Distribution between municipalities based on

• 1/3 of total amount for host municipality • rest divided (over all 4 municipalities) based on formula: (# inhabitants x area inside radius of 2 km)

/average tax income per inhabitant • Duration: 25 years (starting from beginning of construction) with possible prolongation

WIPP acceleration fund – Carlsbad (USA)

• Annual lump sum payments fixed in yearly DOE appropriations (U.S. Senate) • Financial assistance grant from the DOE to Carlsbad city administration • Allocation based on project proposals to be approved by the DOE • Projects have to be related to infrastructure, education or economic development • Duration: dependent on Congressional action (yearly appropriations) – started 2003

Public fund – El Cabril (Spain)

• Fixed and variable (per additional m³ of waste) annual draw from the fund for radioactive waste • Determined by law • Waste producers have to contribute to the fund as long as the nuclear facilities in question remain op-

erational • Fund managed by ENRESA, under supervision of Minister + Committee • Annual contributions (confirmed by Minister), paid out directly to relevant municipalities (host + 3

neighbours) • Distribution between municipalities based on :

• 10% special share for the host municipality • formula: # inhabitants in a 16 km radius (also host) and % of territory within a 8 km radius (also

host) • never more than 50% for 1 municipality

• Duration: from start of operation to ‘decommissioning’


FUNDS FOR LOCAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (cont.)

Kincardine Hosting Agreement (Canada)

• Combination of “milestone” payments and annual lump sum payments: grant total set at the start of the agreement

• Based on a contractual agreement between the waste producers, the host community and its 4 im-mediate neighbours

• Additional one off lump sum payment for the 3 remaining municipalities within the same county (Bruce County)

• Contributions paid out directly to relevant municipalities • Distribution between municipalities based on

• fixed shares, stipulated in the hosting agreement • 61.9% of total amount for the host community

• Duration: 30 years (starting from the agreement to host)

Payments Equal to Taxes – Yucca Mountain Project (USA)

• Annual payments • DOE provides payments-equal-to-taxes (PETT) to eligible units of government (currently State of Ne-

vada, Clark and Nye Counties), to provide the revenue they would have been entitled to if they were authorized to tax the federal government

FUNDS FOR PROJECTS RELATED TO INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORT

Compensation payments from the Federal Government – Gorleben (Germany)

• Based on administrative agreements from Federal Government • Annual contributions paid out directly to the relevant state, district and municipalities (host + 1

neighbour) • Mainly use to support infrastructure projects • Duration: unspecified

Economic Assistance Grant – WIPP, New Mexico (USA)

• Annual lump sum payments: fixed amount, annually indexed to inflation rate • Established by legislation • Economic assistance fund for the State Highway Department by State decision • Purpose: offset impacts of transportation of radioactive waste destined for WIPP through New Mexico,

and upgrade access roads to the facility • Duration: 14 years (in place since 1992)

FUNDING FOR INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT

Oversight Funding – Yucca Mountain Project (USA)

• Annual payments • DOE provides oversight funding to the State of Nevada, 10 affected counties, and the Timbisha

Shoshone Tribe. • Purpose: give the affected counties and the state the ability to conduct independent scientific

oversight. • Payments to the State of Nevada began in 1983 and payments to the affected counties began in

1989. The affected tribe began receiving payments in 2009. • Based on yearly contributions: over 217 million USD (165 million EUR 2008) has been provided by

DOE.


3.7 Taxes as a particular type of community benefit

In most countries benefits through taxes are not used. In almost all cases, RWM facility

operators pay some form of taxes (land, activity, or property tax, or a combination of these).

But this is generally not different from any other industrial activity.

In some countries, however, a specific tax exists on nuclear activity. This is the case in

France (tax on “Basic Nuclear Installations”) and Belgium, but in the case of the latter it

only applies to interim storage. Such specific taxation is usually linked to the potential im-

pact on the environment and is therefore imposed for a specific purpose. In France, addi-

tional national taxes were imposed on basic nuclear installations by the 2006 Planning Act,

to provide for the financing of R&D activity and for outreach measures in case of a geologi-

cal repository project (which can also be used to finance outreach activity for the Bure

URL). In Belgium, one could argue that the local tax on interim storage and sites under

decommissioning is an extinguishing levy on a risk generating activity, put in place to en-

courage the waste manager to find as soon as possible a secure end solution.

In Finland, another variation exists. Here specific rates for property taxes (2.5% as com-

pared to 0.5% on average) are being applied nationally to nuclear installations and these

are considered as a particular type of financial benefit for the local community. However,

the Finnish system is such that municipalities are only entitled to a certain maximum of

total tax income (based in essence on the number of inhabitants and total budget available

to the municipality). This means that part of the additional income from the repository flows

to the national level and to other, more needy municipalities. Posiva will thus be paying

more on taxes than the municipality of Eurajoki will be entitled to keep. Finally, in the U.S.,

taxes are also considered important in terms of community benefits. As a government

agency, the DOE cannot be taxed. Therefore, an arrangement was made according to

which the units of local government, that would have been entitled to levy taxes on the fa-

cilities (regardless of their ‘nuclear nature’) if they had been privately owned, receive annu-

ally “payments equivalent to taxes”.

So taxes as a form of community benefit appear to be the exception, rather than the rule.

Apart from that, most countries have established some form of nuclear waste management

fund. The financing mechanism behind these is based on taxation. Often, this is a levy on

the kilowatt hour (kWh), which in effect is a consumer-tax. The range of RWM related ac-

tivity that is covered by these funds, however, varies considerably. In the cases of Spain

and the U.S. the nuclear waste management fund covers more or less all costs related to

all RWM activity, including the financing of ENRESA and the DOE, as well as community

benefits related to RWM facilities. In both cases financing is allocated through annual ap-

propriations by the government. In most other countries, the nuclear waste management

fund serves a more restricted purpose. The most restricted fund appears to be the Belgian

one, which only covers the costs for the technical realisation of disposal facilities (for all

types of RW). In other countries, e.g. Finland and Sweden, the nuclear waste fund equally

does not cover financing of community benefits, but it can be called upon to cover R&D

costs; costs mandated by the relevant authorities and administration (Finland32); and costs

of decommissioning and transport, as well as costs for providing ‘comprehensive informa-

32 http://www.tem.fi/?l=en&s=1550 and http://www.energia.fi/en/publications/nuclear%20waste.pdf


tion’ (Sweden33). In practice, this means that in Sweden affected communities and NGO’s

are also entitled to funding from the nuclear waste fund in view of their participation in the

siting process. Contrary to Belgium, though, the Finnish and Swedish funds only apply to

the management of spent fuel, not to other types of RW. In France34, the situation is

somewhat comparable to Belgium: different financing mechanisms exist, among which

commercial contracts with the waste producers, but also public funding and the above

mentioned tax on basic nuclear installations, to provide financing for R&D, but also out-

reach activity.

So, although very similar types of community benefits are to be found across the EDRAM

countries, the mechanisms for financing and implementing them vary considerably.

33 http://www.karnavfallsfonden.se/Engstart.htm 34 http://www.andra.fr/dechets-radioactifs/energie-nucleaire-france.htm


4 Conclusion

Where the siting of radioactive waste management disposal facilities is concerned socio-

economic community benefits generally form a substantial part of facility siting efforts and

good community relations in EDRAM member states. In some cases community benefits

are not limited to final repository sites, but are also made available for other types of radio-

active waste management or related facilities, such as central interim storage (CIS) facili-

ties, or underground research laboratories (URL).

Although all implementers stress the impact of the facility on the local economy as a bene-

fit in itself, in terms of additional employment, local procurement and potential spin-offs,

there is growing recognition that communities willing to fulfil an essential service to the na-

tion by hosting a radioactive waste management facility (and in particular a final repository)

are entitled to receive added-value measures to develop their social and economic wellbe-

ing.

It is striking how EDRAM member states use different framings to refer to community

benefits. Particularly in the area of direct funding of affected communities, the terminology

used diverges widely. Where some countries make explicit reference to benefits as “com-

pensation” or “compensatory measures”, others strongly oppose such terminology.

However, regardless of the way they are framed, community benefits generally go above

and beyond direct and indirect benefits from the facility itself. These additional benefits

come in various shapes, but tend to fall under either one of the following five categories:

(1) additional investments in local infrastructure, (2) additional local activity, (3) specific

subsidies and grants, (4) offering support in the form of training and logistics, or (5) setting

up community funds for local development. Only in a few countries, a specific tax or a par-

ticular tax-rate applies for nuclear installations, including radioactive waste management

facilities.

When looking at the decision-making processes for the siting of radioactive waste man-

agement facilities, it appears that throughout the EDRAM countries the nature and scope

of community benefits are predominantly determined through negotiations between the

implementer and the host community. These negotiations in all cases form, in one way or

the other, an integral – albeit not necessarily formal – part of facility siting procedures, run-

ning in parallel with (preliminary) site investigations and feasibility studies. In most cases,

negotiations on community benefits are concluded before licensing. In some cases, when

an agreement is reached, this is then guaranteed by means of a contractual agreement

between the implementer or the electricity producers and the host community or communi-

ties. In other countries, this agreement (that the site is to be the future host for the facility in

question and that these will be the accompanying community benefits) needs confirmation

at the national level through some form of decision in principle or legal act. In all cases, the

‘hosting agreements’, are conditional on regulatory approval.

Even though only limited contextual information was gathered for this study, this informa-

tion clearly indicates that context matters and that the nature, dimension and scope of the

various benefits are not only determined by the specific nature of the concerned installa-

tions, or the size of a country’s nuclear programme, but also by the social and political con-

text, as well as the needs and requirements of the host communities. This makes a de-


tailed comparison between countries difficult, if not impossible, and to a large extent use-

less. More important than comparing ‘naked’ figures (e.g. comparing the amounts made

available to the host community in the case of El Cabril or those for the French GIP fund

with the increased tax-income for Eurajoki once the disposal site at Olkiluoto will be con-

structed), is looking at the context in which they appear and through which process they

came about. First, there are benefits that may not be easily quantifiable, but may neverthe-

less be very important to a community (e.g. contribution to social cohesion). Such ele-

ments are difficult to measure and therefore misleading to compare. Second, and even

more importantly, the processes that concerned parties go through to negotiate benefits

and define added value (that is: what communities consider to contribute to their citizens

well-being) are crucial in determining whether or not such benefits (quantifiable or not) are

seen as appropriate by all concerned. Through these processes, relationships are built

which have an impact on the perception of appropriateness of the agreed benefits. If the

benefits are the end product of a decision-making process that is considered by all parties

to be legitimate and fair, then the community benefits in question could be considered ap-

propriate for that specific situation. And situations vary across countries, across different

parts of one country, but also across time.


5 Annexes 5.1 Annex 1: scope of facilities under consideration in this report

Facility or Project

Capacity of the facility (estimated) Investment cost

(facility) in EUR 2008 Status

CENTRAL INTERIM STORAGE FOR DIVERSE TYPES OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

ZWILAG (CH) 27,000 m³ LLW Construction: 340 M Operational since 2001 11,000 m³ ILW Operation: 950 M Constructed: 1996 - 2000 3,600 tU (200 containers) vitrified HLW & SF

Total cost: 1,290 M Estimated life time: 50 y Decommissioning: 31 M

Gorleben (DE)35

Max. 3,800 ton SF Construction: - Operational since 1995 Max. 420 casks SF & vitri-fied HLW

Operation: - Total cost: -

Decommissioning: -

New project (ES)

6,700 tU SF Construction: 540 M Planned facility - no site 84 containers HLW Operation: 388 M Siting ongoing 1,905 m³ long lived waste Total cost: 928 M Construction: modular in 3 phases;

first phase estimated 4 y; total 20y Decommissioning: - Estimated life time: 60y

SURFACE DISPOSAL OF SHORT LIVED LOW and INTERMEDIATE LEVEL WASTE

Centre de l’Aube (FR)

1,000,000 m³ LILW Construction: 303 M Operational since 1992 Operation: 2,883 M Estimated operational life time: 60y Total cost: 3,186 M POM: -

El Cabril (ES) 100,000 m³ LILW Construction: 177 M Operational since 1992 Operation: 14.5 M / year Estimated operational life time: 40y

(until 2030) Cost up until 2008: 375 M POM: 0.6 M

130,000 m³ VLLW Construction (1st vault of 4): 13.8 M

Operational since 2008 Estimated operational life time: 20y

(until 2030) Operation (1st year): 1.8 M Cost up until 2008: 15.6 M POM: included in LILW

LLWR (UK)

Community benefits only relate to the

construction of this new vault

1,000,000 m³ LLW Construction: - Operational since 1959 in 7 trenches & 1 vault Operation: -

Total cost: - POM: -

110,000 m³ LLW Construction: 24 M Construction: 2009 in additional vault Operation: - Operational since mid 2009

Total cost: - Estimated operational life time: 10y POM: -

cAt project Dessel (BE)

70,000 m³ LILW Construction: 250 M Planned - site identified Operation: 346 M Construction estimated 4y (planned

to start 2016) Total cost: 596 M

Estimated operational life time: 50y POM: 246 M

…/

35 The SF stored in Gorleben originates from German nuclear power plants. SF generated from research

reactors is stored in an interim facility at Ahaus. In 2000 the German Government decided on decen-

tralised interim storage at the reactor sites. Since July 1, 2005 German SF is no longer reprocessed.


/…

Facility or Project



Dounreay (UK)

33,000 m³ LLW currently disposed of in shallow trenches

Construction: 89 M Planned - site identified Operation: 17 M Construction estimated 12y (2011 -

2023) Total cost: 106 M 100,000 m³ LLW from site decommissioning

POM: 12.5 M First phase of operations to start 2014

Estimated operational life time: -

GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL OF SHORT LIVED LOW and INTERMEDIATE LEVEL WASTE

New project (CH)

90,000 m³ LILW Construction (incl. site selec-tion & exploration): 1,040 M

Planned facility - no site Siting planned: 2006 - 2018 Operation: 235 M Construction estimated 5 y (planned

to start 2030) Total cost: 1,275 M POM (incl. 50 y observation):

375 M Estimated operational life time: 15 y + 50 y observation period

GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL OF TRANSURANIC and LONG LIVED LOW and INTERMEDIATE LEVEL WASTE

Kincardine (CA)

16,000 m³ LILW Construction: 426 M Planned - site identified (i.e. LILW from operations of existing OPG plants – 20 reactors)

Operation: 284 M Exploration: 2004 - 2010 Total cost: 710 M Construction estimated 3y (planned

to start 2010) POM: - Estimated operational life time: 40y

Konrad (DE) - Construction: 900 M Facility under construction Cost up until 2008: 800 M

New project (JP)

Possibility of co-disposal

with HLW

19,000 m³ LILW Construction: 4,706 M Planned facility - no site Operation: 996 M Siting process bogged down Total cost: 5,603 M Construction estimated 10y

(planned 2025 – 2035) POM: 454 M Estimated operational life time: 50 y

WIPP (US) 175,000 m³ TRU waste Construction: 835 M Operational since 1999 Operation (pre-emplacement

1988-1999): 910 M Exploration: 1975 - 1981

Construction: 1981 - 1988 Operation (1999-2045): 190

M / y Licensing: 11 years

Estimated operational life time: 45y (until 2045) Total cost: ~8,550 M

POM: -

GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL OF HIGH LEVEL WASTE and SPENT FUEL

Olkiluoto (FI) 5,500 tU SF Construction: 650 M Planned - site identified Operation: 2,100 M Excavation: 2004 - 2011 Total cost: 2,750 M Construction repository: 2015 POM: 250 M Operation estimated as off 2020 Estimated operational life time:

100y

Forsmark (SE) 12,000 tU Construction: 1,954 M Planned - site identified Operation: 960 M36 Start construction planned: 2013 Total cost: 2,914 M Start operations planned: 2020 POM: - Estimated operational life time: 30y

Yucca Moun-tain (US)

Max 70,000 MTHM Expected Total Life Cycle Cost: 72,989 M (incl. POM)

Planned - site identified Exploration since 1983 Construction: start planned 2010 -

2011 (now on hold) Estimated Total Life Cycle:

150y Estimated operational life time: 57y + 50y of monitoring + 10y for closure

…/ 36 Includes estimates for operation of encapsulation plant (to be sited in Oskarshamn)


/…

Facility or Project



New project (CH)

7,000 m³ SF & vitrified HLW

Construction (incl. site selec-tion and exploration): 1,455 M

Planned facility - no site Siting planned: 2006 - 2018

3,000 m³ long lived ILW Operation: 400 M Construction estimated 5y (planned to start 2045) Estimated operational life time: 15y + 50y observation period

Total cost: 1,855 M

POM (incl. 50 y observation): 660 M

New project (UK)

1,400 m³ HLW Estimated total cost: 702 M Planned facility - no site 364 000 m³ long lived ILW Siting ongoing 17 000 m³ long lived LLW 11 200 m³ SF 3 300 m³ plutonium 80 000 m³ uranium

New project (JP)

Possibility of co-disposal

with LILW

40,000 m³ vitrified HLW Construction: 17,433 M Operation: 4,420 M Siting process bogged down Total cost: 21,853 M Construction estimated 10y

(planned 2025 – 2035) POM: 747 M Estimated operational life time: 50y

UNDERGROUND RESEARCH LABORATORIES (URL) or ROCK CHARACTERISATION FACILITIES (RCF)

Bure (FR) No waste allowed Construction: 99 M Operational since 1999 Operation: 16 M / y Construction: 1999 - 2007 Total cost up until 2008: ~239

M

URL to investigate potential for deep disposal for HLW & ILW in the area

Gorleben (DE) No waste Construction: 20 M Operational since 1979 Exploration mine to investigate potential for deep disposal of HLW on site

ONKALO (FI) RCF to establish feasibility for construction of repository for SF on site see supra: planned geological repository for SF (Olkiluoto)

Yucca Moun-tain (US)

No waste Total cost up until 2008: 10,243 M

Exploration since 1983

Exploration to establish feasibility of using the facility as repository for SF & HLW Programme currently on hold

see supra: planned geological repository for SF & HLW

- : no data available; POM : Post Operational Maintenance; VLLW : Very Low Level Waste; MTHM : metric ton heavy metal



5.2 Annex 2: overview of community benefits related to currently operational facilities

Infrastructure Additional activity Subsidies and grants Training and logistic Community development funds

CENTRAL INTERIM STORAGE FACILITIES FOR DIVERS TYPES OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

Switzerland (ZWILAG) Operational since 2001

Additional to taxes, allocation of annual amount of 1.1 M EUR 2008 (index-linked, adjusted every 5 years) to host community and 3 neighbours; for a period of 25 years, starting from beginning of construc-tion (1996)

Germany (Gorleben) Operational since 1979

roads and railway

train station

local community centre

support for local socio-cultural organi-sations

compensation for land use

Allocation of an annual amount from Federal Government to the State (Lower Saxony), the District (Lüchow-Danneberg), the host community and its neighbour to support infrastructure projects

SURFACE DISPOSAL FACILITIES FOR SHORT LIVED LILW

France (Centre de l’Aube) Operational since 1992

5 M EUR 1999 (5.98 M EUR 2008) invested in different projects be-tween 1989 and 1997

Spain (El Cabril) Operational since 1992

reconstruction and upgrading of roads

nature information centre

Red Cross medical centre

support for local schools

training for local subcontrac-tors

Combination of fixed and variable sum allocated annually (in 2008: 1.24 M EUR) to host community and 3 neighbours; from 1992 onward until decommissioning of the site

UNDERGROUND RESERACH FACILITY IN VIEW OF FUTURE DEEP GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL OF HLW IN THE AREA

France (Bure) Operational since 1999


renovation of old buildings

EDF and AREVA archives

Experimental Technology Centre (CTE)

Prototype biomass-fuel facility

Observatory for environmental monitoring (OPE)

EDF subsidies for replacement of old central heating boil-ers

training for local fire brigade training for local companies to

be better equipped to respond to URL’s bids and tenders

local development mission coordinator (1995 - 2006): de-velop local economy and inte-grate URL in socio-economic environment

1999-2006: allocation of annual amount of 20 M EUR 2006 (10 M per concerned District / GIP fund) for projects in 33 municipalities within a 10 km radius from the URL Since 2007: annual amount of 40 M EUR 2008 (20 M per District / GIP fund) for projects in 312 municipali-ties within a particular socio-economic area


Infrastructure Additional activity Subsidies and grants Training and logistic Community development funds

UNDERGROUND EXPLORATION IN VIEW OF FUTURE DEEP GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL OF HLW OR SF AT THE SAME SITE

Germany (Gorleben) see supra

Finland (Eurajoki) Operational since 2004

renovation project

delocalisation of Posiva Headquar-ters (80 employees) to Eurajoki

rent of Vuojoki Man-sion: use and sublet-ting of parts of the Mansion

No fund as such, but a particular tax rate on real estate tax for nuclear installations of 2.5% (as compared to 0.5% on average) In principle only to start once the construction of the disposal facility will start

USA (Yucca Mountain) Operational since 1983;

programme now on hold

information centre financing of inde-pendent monitoring activity (for local community – County level)

emergency response training and equipment

training and technical assis-tance for officials (for local governments and Indian Tribes) in view of waste transports on their territory

logistical support for local schools

donation of office equipment to local units of government

Payments comparable to taxes: allocation by DOE of an annual amount to appropriate units of local government; amount adds up to what governments should receive in terms of taxes, had the DOE been a private company

DEEP GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL OF TRANSURANIC WASTE (of military origin)

USA (WIPP) Operational since 1999;

exploration began in 1975


upgrading of utilities

meeting and con-ference centre

training and manu-facturing centre

laboratory and re-search centre

financial support for local schools for higher education

funding of school pro-jects (for local gram-mar and high schools)

donations to socio-cultural projects

investments in local business develop-ment projects

financing of inde-pendent monitoring activity and ‘baseline health studies’ for communities around WIPP

logistical support for local schools

development of science cur-ricula for local colleges and high schools

seminars for local suppliers development of organisational

tools, training materials and software for local organisa-tions and communities

WIPP acceleration fund: allocation of an annual amount by U.S. Con-gress for investments in infrastruc-ture, education and economic de-velopment in the city of Carlsbad (since 2003)

WIPP road fund: allocation of an annual amount (index-linked) to the New Mexico State Highway De-partment to offset impacts of trans-portation of RW through New Mex-ico, and upgrade access roads to the facility

9

ONDRAF/NIRAS Belgian Agency for Radioactive Waste and Enriched

Fissile Materials Avenue des Arts 14 BE-1210 Brussels

Belgium Tel. + 32 2 212 10 11 Fax +32 2 218 51 65

www.nirond.be

Documents

International Benchmarking of Community Benefits Related ... · Executive Summary 3 1 A diversity of benefits relating to a diversity of projects 5 1.1 Scope of the projects 5 1.2