Path Forward, with EFN, for Sub-seabed Repositories (Craig Porter)

Path Forward, with EFN, for Sub-seabed Repositories The Achilles’ heel of the world-wide nuclear industry – disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) is in need of an international solution. The solution could be sub-seabed repositories located in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans.

Technically, sub-seabed disposal is the best of the alternatives and has been described by a Nobel laureate as a “sweet solution” and a “winner”.1 The technology is simple (precisely emplace HLW canisters using penetrators dropped from a ship and driven by gravity ~50 meters into the sub-seabed ooze), mature (studied and demonstrated by 200+ researchers from 10 different countries for over 12 years), and ready to implement.

Globally, the “sweet solution” is ignored and in fact has been banned by international treaty since 1993. However, a window of opportunity exists to amend the treaty.

Window of Opportunity – Many countries are beginning to re-evaluate their approach to the HLW disposal dilemma. In late 2013 South Korea formed an independent commission to “seek advice from experts and suggest plausible breakthrough ideas” because of their looming SNF storage crisis.2 In the US, a federal court ordered the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to consider the possibility that a federal high-level nuclear waste repository may never get built. In early 2014, the United States Department of Energy announced it is reevaluating its limited policy of using commercial facilities to dispose of its radioactive waste, as there are many factors that would make the use of a commercial facility preferable.3 Special commissions are officially recommending that national repository development programs use “flexible deadlines and continual program reinvention to secure success.”4 Just this week it was announced that, “The situation around the selection of an area for a permanent nuclear waste repository on Czech territory has reached a stalemate.5 The challenge is not restricted to countries with major nuclear programs. A fast growing number of countries with small or emerging nuclear programs cannot afford to develop a national repository. In response to the requests of such nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) published guidance outlining considerations for developing multinational repositories.

Several multinational efforts were enthusiastically undertaken and additional guidance was published. But all such efforts are languishing - particularly hindered by the Not-In-My-BackYard syndrome.

1

2

STEVE NADIS, “The Sub-Seabed Solution”, The Atlantic Monthly, Volume 278, No.4, pages 28-39 (October 1996) Engineering and Technology Magazine, South Korea running out of spent nuclear fuel storage, http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2014/aug/south-korea-nuclear.cfm (18 Aug 2014).

3 Nuclear News, May 2014, Vol. 57, No. 6, pg. 14 (summary of speaker at WM2014), American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Ill (2014).

4 Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, Report to the Secretary of Energy, p. 52, Washington, D.C., available at BRC.gov (2012) 5 The Prague Daily Monitor (Tuesday, 10 November 2015 ), accessed via http://nuclearpower.einnews.com/article/295932168/pJZ0AVrFyEUmP3Dz

1

Path Forward, with EFN, for Sub-seabed Repositories During this past two years, Craig L. Porter, PE, Chief Engineer and owner of Jetseal Engineering & Technical Services, LLC., while working a contract in China, observed a window of opportunity opening for resurrecting the best option for disposing of HLW – sub-seabed repositories. For most, it is not even considered an option since it has been internationally banned by treaty for nearly 25 years. However, not generally known is the fact that, regarding radioactive waste, the treaty provides that, “within 25 years of 20 February 1994, and at each 25 year interval thereafter, Contracting Parties shall complete a scientific study relating to all radioactive wastes…, and shall review the prohibition on dumping of such substances…”.6 The interval for the first 25 year review period effectively concludes during 2018.

The confluence of delayed national programs, increased interest in an international solution, and the re-evaluation period for the treaty makes now the perfect window of opportunity for pursuing sub-seabed disposal.

Treaty Amendment Strategy – The lynchpin for this entire endeavor is amending the international treaty that bans disposal of high-level radioactive waste via sub-seabed sediments.

The 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Convention) initially addressed the subject. In 1996, the “London Protocol” was adopted to further modernize the London Convention and, eventually, replace it. This is all under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

As explained in the IMO website7, most technical conventions adopted since the early 1970s have incorporated a process known as “tacit acceptance”. The tacit acceptance procedure means that amendments enter into force on a set date unless they are specifically rejected by a specified number of countries. Such amendments require approval of two-thirds of the attendees of special consultative sessions. For the most recent eight years the number of attendees has averaged 42, with the countries represented being fairly consistent. Consequently, at least 29 countries will need to be convinced to vote in favor of the amendment for it to pass.

The last time the treaty was amended was to allow a similar sub-seabed activity: sub-seabed sequestration of CO2. In November of 2006 the Contracting Parties adopted an amendment to regulate CO2 sequestration below the seabeds. One-hundred days later the amendment went into force. The relevant guidelines were developed and have been adopted by the Parties. Within seven years after the change, three CO2 sequestration pilot projects had been permitted.

The strategy is to present the amendment for a vote only after the required number of attendees has indicated their support in private meetings. Who to meet with, what to present, how to present it, and when to present it are the critical components of the strategy.

6

International Maritime Organization, “1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972” Annex I, paragraph 3. (as amended in 2006) 7 http://www.imo.org/About/Pages/FAQs.aspx

2

Path Forward, with EFN, for Sub-seabed Repositories Who - The key is to recruit a core of supportive member states to sponsor and champion the required change to the London Protocol treaty. Particular focus will be given to those member states with emerging nuclear programs. For this effort the regular attendees of the annual consultative gatherings have been prioritized into three groups: 1. Small or emerging nations that have or are aspiring to have a nuclear program (14 currently in this category) 2. Major countries that have operating nuclear power plants and plans for a geological repository in the distant future (14).

3. Small countries with remote regions or remote island nations (8).

To counter those regular attendees that do not have any nuclear plans and thus would have no incentive to vote in favor of the amendment, additional countries would need to be recruited to attend the meeting. The perfect outcome would be if all 63 of the Priority 1,2, and 3 countries were persuaded to attend the consultative session and vote in favor of the amendment. Priority will be given to countries emerging into the nuclear arena since they will benefit the most from an international repository. One indicator of such countries is the schedule of the Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR) team of the IAEA. The team recently reported on their eight-day mission to review infrastructure development for a nuclear power program in Morocco.8 Other embarking countries that have utilized the INIR service are Bangladesh, Belarus, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, Poland, Thailand, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam. Each of these countries would benefit from the availability of an international HLW repository as opposed to siting one within their own borders. All eleven of these embarking countries are either signatories of the LCLP treaty or have recently been attending the consultative sessions as observers. A good candidate to sponsor and champion the amendment would be the UEA since they have publicly announced that they are looking for an international solution.9 What and How - Critical to the recruitment effort is assembling a portfolio of concise, informative, educational materials, including short informational videos. In preparation for the private meetings a series of focused informational videos will be developed and translated into the six official languages of the International Maritime Organization. Those languages are Arabic, Mandarin, English, French, Russian, and Spanish. It would be advantageous for each of the Priority 1, 2 and 3 countries to have the materials in their native tongue. If sufficient funds are committed for this portion of the effort, additional translations would occur in Portuguese, Farsi, Italian, Polish, Ukranian, Dutch, Japanese, Korean, German, Marshallese, Filipino, and Bislama. Three focus areas have been identified for the videos and accompanying literature.

8

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-reviews-morocco%E2%80%99s-nuclear-powerinfrastructure-development (27Oct2015).

9 See country profile for United Arab Emirates at htpp://www.world-nuclear.org

3

Path Forward, with EFN, for Sub-seabed Repositories Before the three focus areas are discussed it is important to understand that everything presented is couched in terms of supporting a very specific amendment to Annex I. The specific wording would only allow precise placement of penetrators containing HLW canisters into sub-seabed sediments. This is necessary to clearly separate this effort from previous practices of “dumping” radioactive waste into the oceans. An exhaustive analysis of the successful effort to ban all oceanic disposal of radioactive waste explored how it was successful even though “scientists and powerful states” strongly opposed the ban and there was a “lack of scientific evidence of damage to humans and the marine environment from ocean dumping of radwaste…”10. The ban was successful because the opponents were able to influence a broad audience with simple, strong metaphors and images: a “dying ocean” cause by “dumping”. With the “dumping” image it was easy to make a big issue out of transboundary transport and the difficulty of monitoring compliance. The “dumping” image was also well suited to the argument that retrieval was not possible if risk assessments changed in the future. Eventually the public support for the ban became so overwhelming that the powerful states that strongly opposed the ban, Britain, France, Japan, and the United States agreed to terminate the practice. By eliminating the “dumping” image from the equation, many of the most effective tools previously used by those that are expected to oppose the amendment will be rendered nearly useless.

The first video focus area addresses the generic question of using the oceans vs. land or air for disposing of the waste products of mankind. It will be patterned after a classic treatise authored by the late C. L. Osterberg, that provides a compelling argument in favor of appropriate use of the oceans.11 Mr. Charles Osterberg was a well-respected oceanographer who served as the director of the International Laboratory of Marine Radioactivity in Monaco from 1976-1979. The main take-away from the video is that it is not environmentally responsible to limit our disposal options for radioactive waste to only the land upon which we reside. To be good stewards of the earth we need to consider the earth in its entirety as we address the waste disposal challenges of mankind. This short video (~10 minutes) sets the stage for the other videos.

The second informational video will specifically cover international sub-seabed repositories for high-level radioactive waste. The ultimate goal is to present a convincing, easily understood argument that such repositories are needed and would be protective of human health and the marine environment. Key elements to present include: current state of the land-based HLW disposal approach and how it leads to an environmentally irresponsible situation; ocean site screening process; putting the results of the radiological assessment into perspective for the general public; a description of the overall process; simple summary of research already conducted; long-term isolation ability of the sub-seabed sediments; and retrievability of the waste packages. The complete technical specification for this video, including the envisioned storyline has been developed and quotes have been received.

10

LASSE RINGIUS, Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea, Public Ideas, Transnational Policy Entrepreneurs, and Environmental Regimes, pp.4-5, The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, (2001) 11 C.L.Osterberg, Why Not in the Oceans?, IAEA Bulletin, Vol. 24, No. 2 (1982)

4

Path Forward, with EFN, for Sub-seabed Repositories The final short video will address the advantages to small countries of small modular reactors (SMRs). The important point for smaller nations, island nations, and nations with remote areas, is the fact that SMRs, which are needed by this group, are not economically viable for them in part because the waste disposal liability is open ended. With international sub-seabed repositories the cost becomes fixed at an attractive enough rate that some vendors will include disposal in the price and market the SMRs on a “buy, burn, and return” basis. In other words, a small island nation could purchase a small reactor that supplies power continually for 20, 30, 60 years (depending on the vendor). At end of life the vendor removes it as an entire module (just as it was installed) and handles the disposal of the waste via the contract with the operator of a sub-seabed repository that was tendered at the time the SMR was sold. The small island nation never shoulders that liability.

EFN Involvement – In order to fund and carryout the strategy to amend the international treaty, a non-profit organization, such as EFN, is needed. Originally, Jetseal enlisted the help of ARIUS (Association for Regional and International Underground Storage) to submit a grant proposal enquiry to the Sloan Foundation. However, ARIUS is reluctant to become too active in the effort because of sensitivity “about confusing our geological disposal contacts”12. As a supporting member of ENF, Craig Porter would prepare grant proposals for ENF to submit to pro-nuclear foundations world-wide. ENF members at-large would be enlisted to identify such foundations and help translate the enquiries/grant proposals. Once funding is received, ENF could contract with Jetseal Engineering & Technical Services to obtain the initial deliverables (multi-lingual informational videos and other materials). Representatives from Jetseal and ENF would then systematically meet with representatives of each of the member states to present the proposal and organize support for the amendment. Interested member states would register their support by joining ENF and ARIUS. The member states have been roughly categorized into groupings that at one extreme are most likely to support the amendment and at the other end, most likely to be in opposition. Additionally, ENF would pursue admission by the IMO to attend the consultative sessions as an observer to counter the on-going influence of Greenpeace on the treaty proceedings.

The following table shows the breakdown of the attendees of the annual LCLP consultative gatherings relative to those which either have operating, planned or no nuclear plants.

Nuclear Priority 1 Priority 2 Non-nuclear Priority 3 Total 12

2015 29 14 15 20 6 49

2014 23 11 12 19 7 42

2013 2012 23 22 10 9 13 13 20 19 5 6 43 41

2011 23 10 13 18 4 41

2010 22 10 12 18 5 40

2009 25 10 15 15 6 40

2008 25 11 14 16 8 41

Ave 24 11 13 18 6 42

Email between Dr. Charles McCombie, President of ARIUS Association, and Craig Porter, Chief Engineer of Jetseal Engineering & Technical Services, LLC, dated 18 Sep 2015.

5

Path Forward, with EFN, for Sub-seabed Repositories When - Schedule and Budget – A schedule and budget, supported by quotes on detailed scopes of work, has been developed. Once funding is obtained it will take about 24 weeks to prepare and translate the informational videos and other material into the prioritized languages. With those deliverables in hand, the first meeting location would be London since twenty-six of the member states have permanent representatives in London. Joint travel to the remaining member states would continue until the needed votes are secured. The annual consultative sessions are held every November, but materials are required to be submitted by June. The optimum schedule would require the requisite number of supporting member states to be secured by June of 2016 for a vote in the 2016 consultative session. If that is not possible due to the timing of funding availability, it is imperative that at least one member state be recruited and ENF pursue “observer” status. This is important because the latest work plan for the 25-year review of literature includes the possibility of a decision to be made in November 2016 that “no amendment will be pursued”, unless it is agreed that more literature needs to be reviewed.13 Such an approach will ensure that the window of opportunity for the issue of radioactive waste and the oceans is open thru November 2018, thus allowing continued recruiting of supporters and not present for a vote until 2017 or 2018. The budget for the deliverables is $260K. The travel and recruitment budget is $240K. The budget also includes presenting papers at conferences such as the Waste Management Symposium held annually in Arizona, as well as the International HighLevel Radioactive Waste Management conference held every other year.

EFN Involvement beyond treaty amendment – Once the treaty is changed guidelines would need to be developed for permitting sub-seabed repositories. The IMO has typically used the IAEA to develop such guidelines that relate to radioactive waste. Based on past history, Greenpeace will oppose and try to thwart in any way possible all efforts to move forward. ENF, as an active IMO “Observer”, would play an important role counterbalancing the Greenpeace influence. Once the permitting process is established it would be up to private companies, or individual countries if they so choose, to then pursue permits for operating sub-seabed repositories.

Contact Information: Craig L. Porter, P.E. craig@jetsealengineering.com (208) 200-3006 (mobile in USA)

4232 West 1000 North Rexburg, ID 83440

13

International Maritime Organization, “MATTERS RELATED TO THE MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES, Proposed work plan for the 25-year scientific review of all radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter”, LC 37/10/1, (5Aug2015).

6