WNWR 2019 — 2. ORIGINS AND CLASSIFICATION
30
2.4 SUMMARY What exactly constitutes waste turns out not to be a matter of common sense. Some countries define certain products by nuclear reactions as waste, others as potential resources. For instance, plutonium qualifies as waste in many countries because of its hazardous nature and its low or negative economic value. However, France requires reprocessing by law, thus separating plutonium in large quantities for commercial use. Reprocessing both postpones the waste issue and makes it more complex. Managing the various products of nuclear reactions, whether formally categorized as waste or not, is politically and socially contentious and involves potentially high hazards. Classification systems for nuclear waste can differentiate waste in terms of three characteristics: by level of radioactivity (low, intermediate and high), by time period of radioactive decay (short-lived and long-lived), and by management option (type of storage and disposal facility). Though lower-level waste is produced in large volumes, it carries little levels of radioactivity. This is the case, for instance, for steel and concrete from decommissioning. Conversely, high-level waste occurs in small volumes but makes up the vast bulk of radioactivity and generates significant quantities of heat, such as spent nuclear fuel. The International Atomic Energy Agency provides a broad framework of classification for nuclear waste. The 2001 Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management constitutes a default position for many countries. With the 2011 directive 2011/70/EURATOM the EU attempted to harmonize waste classification systems for its member states, but with limited success. No member state has exactly followed the EU’s recommendations, with France, Sweden and the Czech Republic have come closest. Overall, countries in Europe differ significantly in their classification systems for nuclear waste. First, they differ in whether spent nuclear fuel and some of its potential separated products (plutonium and uranium) are waste or a resource. Second, there are significant differences in the categorizations of waste, with no two countries having identical systems. While all agree on the category of heat-generating (high-level) waste, there are several alternative ways of characterizing other nuclear waste streams. Some countries distinguish between short- and long-lived wastes at both low- and intermediate-level while others use the low and intermediate categories without distinguishing between short and long lifetimes. Some systems are based largely on the origins of waste, some on potential or actual disposal sites or other management options, and others still on a mixture of activity levels and half-lives. These differences make comparing waste classification systems across countries highly complex.
