Introduction
Belgium is the only country in the world that has an underground laboratory in clay, in Mol, for the research on the final disposal of highly radioactive waste. Therefore, we go more deeply into the choice for Mol. Also, there is an ongoing discussion about a local partnership for the storage of low-level radioactive waste. That is the second subject of this chapter.
In this chapter, information can be found from the NIRAS, the "Nationale Instelling voor Radioactief Afval en Verrijkte Splijtstoffen" (National Institution for Radioactive Waste and Enriched Fissile Material), and from Greenpeace. Conversations were made with Evelyn Hooft of the communications division of NIRAS and with Jan vande Putte of Greenpeace. They also commented on a draft version of this chapter.

1. NUCLEAR POWER PROGRAM
In Belgium, seven pressurised water reactors are in operation: four at Doel and three at Tihange. The oldest nuclear power reactor is Doel-1 which came into operation in 1974; Tihange-3 is the latest (in operation since mid-1985).[1]
The share of nuclear energy in the electricity supply is 54% and its generating capacity is 5.7 GWe. France has a share of 67% in Tihange-1 and Belgium has a share of 25% in the French nuclear power reactors at Chooz, at the Belgium-France border. In 1988, the Belgian government abandoned plans to build an eighth nuclear power reactor in Belgium.[2]
The "Studiecentrum voor Kernenergie" (Research Center for Nuclear Energy, SCK-CEN) is located in Mol. Three research reactors were built there--BR1 (1954), BR2 (1963) and BR3 (1962). Of these, BR1 and BR2 are still in operation. Between 1966 and 1974, the reprocessing plant Eurochemic at Mol had been in operation, among others for the reprocessing of spent fuel from the Dutch nuclear power reactor Dodewaard. In nearby Dessel are located the manufacturers of reactor fuel Belgonucleaire (MOX-fuel) and FBFC International, "Franco-Belge de Fabrication de Combustibles International" (France-Belgium for the Manufacture of Fuel International) that manufactures uranium fuel and assembles the MOX fuel elements. Dessel also houses Belgoprocess, a subsidiary company of NIRAS, which is the central interim storage for all nuclear wastes. It also operates waste conditioning installations.
The first big action against nuclear energy was organised in June 1979 at Doel [3] when all the above mentioned nuclear installations were already in operation or were under construction.
 

2. PRODUCERS OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE
The nuclear power reactors at Doel and Tihange are the main producers of radioactive waste. The manufacturers of nuclear fuel SCK-CEN and the "Instituut voor Radio-elementen" (Institute for Radio-Elements, IRE) in Fleurus are considered to be moderate producers. There is also waste from reprocessing of spent fuel elements abroad and from dismantling of nuclear installations, for intance, from the past radium manufacturer at Olen.[4] There is also radioactive waste from medical applications, industry and research.
About 70% of the volume of nuclear waste comes from the nuclear industry and another 10% from nuclear energy research. The other 20% is from the IRE, the Euratom-Institute for Reference Materials and Measurement (IRMM) and from applications in industry and hospitals.[5] Further specifications are not made. Thus it is unknown which part is waste from hospitals.
 

3. CATEGORIES OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE
The NIRAS distinguishes three categories of radioactive waste:[6]
- Category A: low- and intermediate-level waste with a short half-life.
This category includes low- and intermediate-level waste with a half-life of less than 30 years. This waste comes from nuclear power reactors and installations that manufacture or use radioactive elements, such as filters and gloves. According to NIRAS, this waste may contain radionuclides with a long half-life, but only if the radiation dose is so low that there is no danger whatsoever.
- Category B: low- and intermediate-level waste with long half-time.
This is waste that is contaminated with radioactive elements with a long half-time, in amounts that are that big that it cannot be classified in Category A. This waste mainly comes from the manufacturing of fuel elements and reprocessing.
- Category C: high- and very high-level waste.
This category includes radioactive material with short or long half-life that produces a lot of heat. This is waste from reprocessing of spent fuel elements or the used fuel itself, if not reprocessed.
 

4. AMOUNTS OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

4.1 Present amounts
Of Category A waste, 15,000 m³ had been dumped in the ocean.[7] The NIRAS also managed about 10,000 m³ up to the end of 1997, that came for 74% from the nuclear power reactors at Doel and Tihange, 3% from the fuel cycle, 11% from research and medical science, 10% from nuclear "passiva" (liabilities, for instance, Eurochemic) and 2% from the production of Belgoprocess.[8] Yearly, an amount of 500 to 600 m³ is additionally produced.
At the end of 1997, the NIRAS managed about 3,500 m³ waste of Category B. This waste mainly came from the closed reprocessing plant Eurochemic.
The amount of Category C is 215 m³, of which 200 m³ is vitrified waste from Eurochemic.[9]
The abovementioned consider amounts that are managed by the NIRAS. These differ from the amounts produced in the past. For instance, spent fuel elements are not managed by the NIRAS and are thus not included in the figures abovementioned. There are no figures available on the totally produced amounts in the three different categories.

4.2 Future amounts
The NIRAS calculated how much radioactive waste would arise until the year 2050. This calculation is based on the fact that the present seven nuclear power reactors would remain in operation as long as their economical/technical lifetime will allow. The NIRAS also assumes that the industry and medical science would keep using radioactive materials.
With this presupposition, the amount of waste to be managed until 2050 is:
Category A: 60,000 m³;
Category B: 8,000 m³;
Category C: 2,500 m³.

There had been a discussion about these amounts. In April 1994, the NIRAS published a report on the aboveground storage of Category A waste. In the report the conclusion was made that "in a safe way, it was technically possible to dispose of--at the surface--at least 60% of the low- and intermediate-level waste produced in Belgium".[10] The question arose about the disposition of the other 40%. Evelyn Hooft of NIRAS commented on this: "These 40% could not be disposed of at the surface. I want to nuance this figure as follows. The amount of waste that eventually can de disposed of in a surface disposal site is, for an unchanged disposal concept, defined by two factors: firstly, the radiological properties of the waste itself and secondly the properties of the disposal site. The figure of 40% was the result of an illustrative calculation on a typical and representative waste amount and on a disposal site with 'moderate' properties. If another disposal site would be considered, another distribution than 40% - 60% will probably be determined. A better characterization of the waste will also change this distribution." [11][12]
Where the NIRAS in 1994 used a prediction of 100,000 m³ Category A waste, in 1997 this figure was reduced to 60,000 m³. Hooft said: "In reactions it looked like the NIRAS would let waste disappear, but that is untrue of course. Initially we used conservative estimations of the amounts. But the incoming amounts decreased as a consequence of a number of technical improvements, among which is an optimalisation of the management of operational waste (sorting at the source) and the use of new conditioning technics (among others, super compaction). Besides, the estimations on the volume of waste coming from dismantling were revised downwards with more than 30,000 m³, because of improved dismantling techniques that produce less waste." [13][14]
 

5. WHERE IS IT STORED?
The three categories of wastes are now stored at Belgoprocess, a subsidiary company of the NIRAS, in Mol-Dessel. For low-level waste, there exist two buildings (building 150: 97% of the storage capacity is used; and building 151: 57% of storage capacity used). There is a building for intermediate-level waste, whose capacity has been used for 80% and a building for high-level waste (building 129, 91% full). Totally, till the end of 1997, 13,691 m³ had been stored in 40,650 barrels.[15] Next to building 129 is building 136, where 600 m³ of vitrified high-level waste and 1,000 m³ of high- and intermediate-level waste can be stored.[16]
 

6. RESPONSIBILITIES
The NIRAS is responsible for managing the radioactive waste. It is under the supervision of the Minister of Energy. The NIRAS is a public institution that was, by law of 8 August 1980, charged with the management of radioactive waste produced in Belgian territory. With this, the collection and management of radioactive waste was centralised.
As the NIRAS says, it manages "the radioactive waste in a way that it is of no danger for the population and the living environment". The NIRAS also searches "intensively for a solution which makes it possible to isolate the radioactive waste definitely from the biosphere so that there is also no danger to future generations". The NIRAS wants to dispose of the waste "without imposing excessive burdens upon future generations".
The costs of the management of the waste are paid by the producers of the waste. These producers also make provisions to cover future costs. This money is yearly paid to a fund managed by the NIRAS.
However, Greenpeace Belgium doubts whether this fund can provide the necessary money: too little has been reserved for the storage of nuclear fuel, and there is a defective control on the way of putting money aside.[17]
 

7. RESEARCH LABORATORY AT MOL
In 1974, when the first Belgian nuclear power reactor became operational, the SCK/CEN in Mol started a research program on the final disposal of high-level radioactive waste with long half-life. In cooperation with the Belgium Geological Survey it was studied which geological formations would be suitable.
According to the NIRAS, the following requirements were made for a geological formation:
--situated in an area least subjected to earthquake;
--the formation should be homogeneous and should possess properties to limit the migration of radioactive elements;
--the formation should have a small permeability and/or porosity and be sufficiently deep and vast;
--the formation should be stable.
According to these criteria, granite, salt formations, clay and slate could be considered.[18]

Belgium has no salt formations and granite is at too great a depth. Regarding slate, the NIRAS remarks that there is a lot of data on low-depth layers available, "but in many cases they had not been researched on great depth". This is contrary to slightly hardened rock like the "Boom Clay". These could be "better identified and characterised". The Boom Clay reaches some hundreds of square kilometers below the "Kempen" and is about 200 metres thick. This formation was selected for the studies.[19]
After the choice for a formation, the next question is which location would be the most suitable. The NIRAS states: "Apart from its instrinsic qualities, the Boom Clay layer has the advantage of being located under the nuclear site of Mol-Dessel. The choice for this clay layer was also influenced by a number of non-geological factors, like the availability of the terrain, the presence of personnel and multi-disciplinary laboratories and the outlook to have available a local solution for eventual disposal of reprocessing waste from the Eurochemic plant". The NIRAS adds: "Taking into account all these aspects, the clay option was considered as the best choice for Belgium although there was a serious disadvantage at that time, which is the lack of experience in digging and building of extensive constructions in a clay layer at a depth of over two hundred metres".[20]

Between 1980 and 1984, a research laboratory was built in clay at a depth of 230 metres. The initial design consisted of a shaft and a gallery at 230 metres and of 26 meters in length and a useful diameter of 3.5 metres. In 1987, a new gallery was constructed with a length of 67 metres. The laboratory was named HADES (High Activity Disposal Experimental Site).[21]
In 1995, a second phase of research started: the PRACLAY project (preliminary demonstration test for clay disposal of highly radioactive waste). With this project, the NIRAS had to prove that the infrastructure of a geological disposal of high-active, heat-producing, vitrified waste can be built, operated and sealed in a safe way. The NIRAS also has to prove that the cost-price should be acceptable. Therefore, the geological disposal will be demonstrated full-sized. The law on mining did not allow the construction of PRACLAY from the HADES laboratory. So a second shaft has to be constructed, from which a connection gallery of 80 metres with HADES. That can be finished in 2003. The heat-production of the high-level waste determines the behaviour of clay. To study this, heat production is simulated with electric resistors between 2004 and 2007. After a cooling-down period of two years, the used instruments will be removed. In 2010, the project is to be finished.[22] According to present plans, final disposal will start in 2035 in a new storage mine to be constructed--which does not have to be at Mol--and the last canister should go underground around 2070/2080.[23]

From available literature, it seems that no formal objections were made against the choice for clay or the construction of the laboratory. In 1980, the "Verenigde Aktiegroepen voor Kernstop" (Organised Action Groups for a Nuclear Ban, VAKS) doubted the stability of clay layers[24]. In 1981, the "Stroomgroep Stop Kernenergie" (Energy Group to Stop Nuclear Energy) wrote that clay could not stop all radioactive elements and that clay contains corroding elements. They pleaded to stop waste production and asked for an independent research on the best way to limit the potential damage from radioactive waste[25]. These doubts however did not result in delaying the construction of the HADES laboratory. The construction of PRACLAY started three years later than planned,[26] but that had to do with the realisation of new organisational structures and not because of protests. There had been procedures for public input, but no objections were brought in.

What does the NIRAS think about the absence of protests? "On one hand it has to do with the situation in the early 1970s, when people thought different about nuclear waste. On the other hand, it was always said that it concerned tens of years of research and that no decisions would be made. We emphasize that the laboratory is not meant to really build a disposal facility, for this, among others, the entrance shafts are too narrow."[27]
Greenpeace also did not organise actions nor bring in formal objections against the underground laboratories, said Jan vande Putte, the nuclear energy campaigner of Greenpeace Belgium. On itself he does not object to research, but he considers PRACLAY to be a step too far: "We have serious objections against the PRACLAY project because it is not a fundamental research. It is the realisation phase under the hat of research." Therefore, Greenpeace will indeed get involved with the case in the near future.[28]
 

8. LOW-LEVEL WASTE AND PARTNERSHIP

8.1 From above ...
The NIRAS was founded in 1980. Since 1982, when "sea disposal at great depth of conditioned low-level waste"[29] (the dumping in the Atlantic Ocean) was stopped, the NIRAS has studied the possibility of storage on land. It concerns Category A waste.
At the end of the 1980s, the NIRAS recognised the next possibilities: final disposal in the Belgium-Limburg coal mines, final disposal in the deep underground in clay and final disposal at the surface, in which the waste will be placed some metres below the earth's surface and covered by a protective construction, as in El Cabril (Spain) and l'Aube (France). Disposal in coal mines was called by the NIRAS as being "unacceptable": "The rock surrounding the galleries showed too much changes by the coal mining that could, in the long-term, lead to the danger of radioactive contamination of the groundwater of upper areas. The NIRAS questioned the disposal in clay. More insight should be available in corrosion capabilities of the waste in clay and the possible release of big amounts of gases that could result in the formation of fractures[30]. According to the NIRAS, it will therefore study concepts that will prevent the build-up of gases: "If Category A waste would be disposed of in one site together with Category B and C waste, it could be that special disposal installations have to be designed for this."[31]

The final disposal aboveground, at the earth’s surface, became the "reference solution for the NIRAS"[32], which conducted from 1990 a four-year study on its technical feasibility.
In April 1994, the NIRAS published a study on the surface storage of Category A waste. In the report, 98 potentially suitable locations were mentioned in 47 municipalities[33].
In May 1994, Greenpeace released a report that pointed to the fact that there is a lack of a systematic study on different disposal possibilities. Also social, economic and ethical studies were postponed until a later stage. Greenpeace also remarked that the criteria, on the basis of which the 98 locations were chosen, were vague. For instance, the criterion of sufficiently homogeneous clay of sufficient thickness, what is meant by sufficient? The report also shows that the locations of Doel, Tihange and Mol cannot meet the criteria[34].
The scientific advisory commission that researched the proceedings on request of the NIRAS recommended that human-scientific and social aspects be taken into account. A special governmental working group had the opinion that NIRAS should have more contacts with citizens: "It is a bad case that until now NIRAS only reacts to an invitation for debate. The result is that no remarks were made on the positive consequences of a disposal, for instance employment," said Robert Leclère of this working group, in March 1995[35].

In a reaction, the NIRAS stated that there had been studies on the social consequences of surface disposal of nuclear waste: "That report was never made public, because the government wanted alternatives for surface disposal as well and we did not want to give the impression with the publication of this report to continue only with surface disposal."[36]
Greenpeace stated that in 1995, test drillings would be conducted at some locations. The population can only react after the selection of one site. "The risk is high that decisions will be taken without a broad social and political debate. Thus it is of big importance that citizens and politicians from all the municipalities should react forcefully before it is too late," wrote Greenpeace in an action paper[37].
The call from Greenpeace had effect. Several municipalities exempted a municipal official from daily work to collect data and coordinate the resistance[38]. Several demonstrations took place, organised by local groups and with the participation of the municipalities[39]. The NIRAS report resulted everywhere in resolutions in municipal councils in which the storage was rejected[40].
Freddy Decamps, director-general of the NIRAS, stated in May 1995 that at the end of that year, a choice would be made for 10 to 15 locations for test drillings. In the next phase, he said, two or three locations would remain, and in 1997, the political decision should be made unless the government would ask the NIRAS to stop with the plans.[41]

8.2 ... through a military intermezzo ...
At the end of 1996, the NIRAS became a request from the Ministry of Economic Affairs--incited by the Ministry of Defence--of whether one of the 25 military bases would be suitable for the disposal of Category A waste. That work became public in early 1997[42] and again gave rise to unrest.
The advantage of military sites was that no change of a local development plan, with an included public input procedure, was to be required. Of course there would indeed be public input possible on the actual storage. Some politicians tried to win the municipal council by promising an investment of 100 to 300 million Belgian Francs (Dfl 5 to 15 million) for a science museum or an amusement park[43][44] .
The municipality of Beauraing, where the military base of Baronville is located, is a possible candidate for Category A waste. On 28 June 1998, a local referendum was held. To the citizens the question was presented whether they wanted a storage bedded into a broader project that would make possible the development of other activities like tourism or research. For this broader project, 1 billion Belgian Francs (Dfl 50 million) were to become available and employment should be expected for 150 persons. This could be read in a brochure disseminated house-to-house[45]. Apart from this brochure, the citizens were informed by information meetings, NIRAS came with an exhibition, and Greenpeace gave information but also constructed an artificial pyramid with nuclear waste barrels. The outcome of the referendum, with a 67% turn-out, showed that 94% rejected the storage[46].
The NIRAS considered Baronville to be "a very unpleasant case. Local politicians supported the plan but action committees were formed. Thus the municipality decided to hold a referendum. We at the NIRAS did not want a plebiscite at that time because we had not yet finished our working program and we were studying the request of the government on the different alternatives and on issues concerning the acceptance by the public. We did not have a concrete project. In the framework of the plan for military domains of the Ministry of Defence, the NIRAS was mentioned and that thwarted our plan with the alternative policy options. First our report with policy options should have been released before we could eventually do something with Baronville"[47].
Greenpeace Belgium pointed to the fact that at a certain moment, the municipality aimed at a low turnout: "If the quotum would not be reached, then the outcome of a referendum would be invalid. The municipality itself then could take a decision. When it looked like that the people would say no, despite the compensation of over 1 billion Francs, the municipality started the strategy to discourage people to vote. But that strategy failed"[48].

8.3 ...towards partnership?
On 16 January 1998, the government decided to proceed with further work on "a final solution or a solution with definite, progressive, flexible and reversible destination"[49]. According to this decision, low- and intermediate-level waste can be stored either close to the earth’s surface as well as in deep geologic clay formations[50]. With this, the government declared itself to be opposed to the option of long-term (interim) storage and followed this by what the NIRAS described as ethical basic principles: "On one hand, to act in a way that the conditions for the storage of waste on the long-term do not bear unacceptable risks for the health of future generations; and on the other hand, do not impose excessive technical and financial burdens on those generations". Long-term storage implicates that eventually a new building would be necessary for prolonged storage and "that all would implicate important postponed technical and financial efforts"[51].
The storage was for some decades which "guarantees in itself the reversibility of the decision-making process until the closure of the disposal site, i.e., until about 2060. Instead of taking an authoritative attitude, the government gave priority to support the debate, in a way that opinions gradually will converge to consensus". The NIRAS called this governmental decision "in every way an ethical standpoint"[52]. Greenpeace gave a contrary view, stating that now the option of "long-term aboveground storage" had been rejected. Greenpeace considered this to be ethically irresponsible because in an irreversible way the limitations of our present knowledge and insight are imposed upon future generations[53].

What ethical theory was behind the ethical standpoints taken? Vande Putte stated that the NIRAS used the word ethics to justify a proposed practice, but he gave no further explanation of the ethical theory used by Greenpeace[54]. NIRAS said thathere is "no own ethical theory. The NIRAS takes over the ethical principles as internationally developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Energy Agency"[55].
We refer to the following. We studied these principles in our report, "Nuclear waste and nuclear ethics". From our research, it turned out that these principles were not so much that ethical or a "sound ethical thought", but were sometimes controversial recommendations with political compromises. The question of moral justification of the nuclear waste production was insufficiently discussed.
Concerning research, the NIRAS was limited to the existing "nuclear zones" in Doel (nuclear power reactors), Mol (SCK/CEN), Dessel (manufacturing fuel elements), Fleurus (Institute for Radio elements), Tihange (nuclear power reactors) and to locations where local authorities showed interest[56]. Vande Putte called this a "pure political decision". According to him, "sociologists of the Universities of Antwerp and Liège have stated that at the nuclear zones a kind of habituation has been formed. One can either accept the nuclear risks, or one moves. Therefore, one can expect an acceptance at the existing nuclear zones. Although it could also indeed be possible that an additional waste storage results in a bad reputation for the community and that houses will decrease in value. With this, public acceptance can appear to be low"[57].
Mol-Dessel, Tihange and Doel, which were dropped in 1994, were now on the list. The NIRAS clarified this by referring to the fact that deep disposal was called a possibility: "Apart from this, the surface storage concept was changed. In 1994, no control mechanism was foreseen. The new concept indeed takes into account monitoring during three hundred years. And we are studying how to do so. But I want to emphasize that it concerns a broad research, in which social aspects and acceptance have a very big role. It can happen that it appears that the nuclear zones will all be dropped."[58]
The NIRAS conducted deep test drillings at the locations[59]. Mol-Dessel and Doel were both candidates for surface disposal as well as deep disposal. In Tihange and Fleurus only surface disposal was studied. In March 1998, Decamps stated that NIRAS definitely shelved the studies on the 47 municipalities and 24 military training sites[60].
The government policy resulted in new orders to NIRAS. At the end of 2001, the NIRAS wants to propose new concrete designs, in which integration and partnership will be central. The NIRAS supported the new policy because "it had gradually realised during the last years that old procedures are not sufficient"[61].

The NIRAS hoped that "the local communities not only voluntarily but also actively participate in the work. Everyone can, yes or no, participate in the project, but the project will have good results if one feels really involved, not as observer, but as actor. (...) The disposal has to be integrated in a much broader whole, of which the general impact on the community is positive. Then the disposal is no longer a burden but it becomes a catalyst for the economic, cultural and social life". (...) "From the start to strive for a real partnership, instead of limiting oneself to a contradictory debate, means a renewal for the sector of the nuclear waste"[62].
NIRAS gives the following contents to the partnerships: "The partnership we propose on one hand includes representatives of concerned people who pay attention and, on the other hand, representatives of the NIRAS. (...) With the exeption of NIRAS, the possible partners have to live in the concerned municipality(ies)." Possible partners might be local governments, environmental, labour or socio-cultural organisations and the local nuclear operators. Individuals or companies can be supervisory members and participate in working groups[63].
The partnerships have to consist of four organs:
--The general meeting, in which all partners have a seat.
--The governing committee, which is appointed by the general meeting and consists of no more than six persons.
--The coordination for daily management, consisting of at least two persons.
--Working groups that give the project proposal concrete forms, work out possible options and ask advice from experts[64].

Every partnership will start with the collection of information. The partnership will be helped with this by the University Institute Antwerp (UIA), the Foundation University Luxembourg (FUL) and the NIRAS. Then the partnership will make a thorough study of the collected data and decides whether it is, or not, possible to work out one or more proposals for an integrated disposal project. After the study phase, "the partners will together discuss the different project proposals for disposal that had been worked out, before a candidate proposal is worked out more completely in the form of a maquette, so that the project is a visual proposal apart from the reports". The NIRAS would continuously evaluate the technical feasibility of the proposals[65].
The partnership has to be careful that "the proposed disposal project is integrated in a broader project that is supported by broad consensus and will be good for the municipality"[66].
The partnership is responsible for information to the population: "More special, the partnership will take care of contacts with media, with the broad public and with local organisations that are not directly involved as partners in conducting the project"[67].
Every partnership works out one or two concrete proposals. These proposals are reviewed by independent experts on safety, costs and expected social benefits. The purpose of the advice is to make a ranking list of projects. The NIRAS itself would be involved in the project and therefore not the designated authority to give advice. Hence, there would be the independent commission that, however, cannot dismiss proposals as such. The proposals and the advice are submitted to the government which would take a decision[68].

According to the NIRAS, "at the moment a kind of information round is taking place with possible target groups. We also want groups opposing the storage to join. All local actors are consulted and invited to cooperate. Tihange is not interested. The municipality Beveren, in which Doel is located, is waiting. Conversations are ongoing in Fleurus. In Mol and Dessel two partnerships will be formed, because in Dessel local authonomy plays an important role"[69].
A precondition in the discussions is that the existing storage capacity at Belgoprocess in Dessel is to be fully utilised around 2005: "By that time, the NIRAS has to prepare to bring into practice the policy for the long-term management as chosen by the government"[70]. The precondition, however, is "no urgent issue", says the NIRAS: "Actually, there is no urgency. Indeed in 2005 a decision is necessary, but that could also be an extension of the existing buildings."
Greenpeace has objections to the limitation to waste from category A: "A partnership for only this category is not accepted by people because this will not mean a real solution. In practice Category A is very diffuse. In the past, a part of A seemed to be in fact B. There was no effort towards a solution for B waste. Greenpeace wants an integrated solution. Its position is that there is nuclear waste, and although the nuclear power reactors are still in operation, it wants to take a responsible position on nuclear waste. There are indeed a lot of nuclear legacies in Belgium and Greenpeace does not want them to be spirited away, but handle them in an integrated way. That's why we consider the existing idea for partnership a waste of time"[71].
The plea for an integrated approach meets with a wide response from the NIRAS: "There has never been a real social debate on the global problem, not even on low-level and short-living waste. What we see now is that in the public opinion there are requests coming for a global approach"[72].
 

9. SUMMARY
The NIRAS has managed all the radioactive waste that has been produced on Belgian territory.
In Mol, an underground laboratory was realised in clay. When it was set up, it did not face large public resistance. It is the only laboratory in the world with such a size. Extensions are being made in the PRACLAY (clay disposal) project. With this project, the NIRAS has to prove that an infrastructure for a geological disposal of vitrified waste can be built, operated and sealed in a safe way. The NIRAS points out that there was an absence of protests towards the research character of the project, and states that the laboratory cannot be converted into a final disposal unit. The research character is the reason Greenpeace did not resist, although Greenpeace considers PRACLAY to be a step too far and thinks the project is the realisation phase "under the guise of research". Both Greenpeace and the NIRAS expect that a decision on storage will indeed lead to protests.
Public discussions about nuclear waste were on low- or intermediate-level waste with short half-life (Category A). In 1994, the NIRAS mentioned 98 possible locations in 47 municipalities. In 1997, an additional 25 military bases, not anymore in use as such, were added. The proposals led to mass protests. In these protests, the fact that different factors determine whether waste is Category A waste or not played a role.
After the protests, the government reviewed its policy. The research is now limited to the existing nuclear zones in Doel, Tihange, Mol, Dessel and Fleurus, or to municipalities that volunteer. The government will not conduct a broad consultation with the population.
A new element is the partnership, consisting of local governments, local organisations, and the local nuclear operators, as well as the NIRAS. The idea behind this is that the storage can fit in a broader project, so that the total effect is to be perceived by the local community as positive. These partnerships still have to be formed.
 

10. CONCLUSIONS
1. Until now there has never been a discussion about the total nuclear waste policy, and there is no expectation that it is being planned.
2. The definition of the different categories of waste is unclear and difficult to explain. This has not supported the gaining of public acceptance.
3. The idea of local partnerships still has to be worked out. In practice it has to be shown whether the idea is realistic.