Introduction
After a presentation on the waste policy of Spain at a conference[1] and upon receiving information on an inquiry by the Spanish Senate, CORA requested us to include Spain to our list of countries to be studied. We agreed with the request but found some difficulties in describing the country. These difficulties deal in one part with a shortage of English material about Spain, and also the choice not to visit that country to have extensive interviews because of time and fund constraints. Therefore, this chapter will be shorter than the others. This is also because of the fact that the inquiry outcome was unsuccessful, its report was rejected by the Senate and the commission was disbanded.
For this chapter, the information was found in a number of documents, mainly from the OECD/NEA, the waste authority "Empresa Nacional de Residuos Radioactivos SA" (ENRESA), and the WISE News Communique. Telephone conversations were made with representatives from ENRESA. Unfortunately, no environmental organisation reacted to our requests for information. Their view is presented through the use of the WISE News Communique as a source. A draft version of the chapter was commented upon by Elena Vico and collegues at ENRESA.
 

1. NUCLEAR POWER PROGRAM

Spain's first nuclear reactor was opened in 1968. Aside from a now gas-graphite reactor which has been shut down, all the nine reactors are of the light-water design. Nuclear energy has a 34% share in total electricity production and a generating capacity of 7.1 GWe. Based on its National Energy Plan 1991-2000, no new nuclear capacity is foreseen[2].
 

2. PRODUCERS OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

Main producers of nuclear waste are the nuclear power plants that are responsible for about 95% of the radioactive waste that would be produced in the coming decades. Other producers are, for instance, medical and industrial isotope users[3].
 

3. CATEGORIES OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

Spain knows two categories of radioactive waste. The first one is low- and intermediate-level waste that has a low specific activity, short-lived beta and gamma emitters and a low concentration of long-lived alpha isotopes. The category high-level waste has a high specific activity, a higher concentration of long-lived isotopes or is heat generating[4].
 

4. AMOUNTS OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

4.1 Present amounts
Till the end of 1995, 21,000 m³ low- and medium-level waste and about 1,800 MT(U) of spent fuel were stored. Annual production of low/medium-level waste was 1,200 m³ and 160 tU of spent fuel. Spent fuel of the closed Vandellós-1 was sent to the reprocessing plant La Hague in France. In 1983, however, the government decided to stop reprocessing. Vitrified high-level waste is to be returned to Spain in the future[5].

4.2 Future amounts
Based on a 40-year lifetime of nuclear reactors, a total of 200,000 m³ of low- and intermediate-level waste has to be stored in the future. Main part of this are wastes that arise from dismantling (64%). Others are, for instance, operating wastes from reactors (23%) or other producers (5%). A total of 10,500 m³ of high-level wastes have to be stored, being 6,750 MT of spent fuel and 200 m³ vitrified reprocessing waste[6].
 

5. WHERE IS IT STORED?

Low- and intermediate-level waste is disposed of at the El Cabril surface disposal facility. This facility, located in the province of Córdoba at the location of an abandoned uranium mine, was opened in 1992 and can store waste till about 2015. The waste packages are stored inside big concrete containers of about 2 x 2 x 2 meters. The blocks are covered with protective structures and later covered with earth. A surveillance period for 300 years is foreseen[7].
Spent fuel is stored at the reactor sites. As there is no final storage yet, three options are open for interim storage. Reracking inside the reactor cooling pools will increase storage capacity. Other possibilities are the construction of on-site storage casks or a centralised interim facility[8]. According to ENRESA, reracking has been completed at all reactors and the storage casks are licensed to be used as further expansion capacity increases[9]. The construction of a centralized interim facility would not be really necessary till the year 2010. So, research is being conducted on this option, but no specific plans of a site have been made, says ENRESA[10].
However, environmental groups protested against a 1999 government decision to give the green light for a waste storage facility at the Trillo nuclear power station, which they feared would become the de facto centralized interim storage as mentioned. According to Ecologistas en Accion, the facility, which is said to be necessary as spent fuel pools in Trillo would be filled in 2003, would have a storage capacity that could store twice as much as the Trillo spent fuel produced and would be easily expandable. As the Trillo power station is owned by almost all the electric utilities, they fear the companies would "solve" the waste problem with this facility. The government decision overruled two earlier refusals by the city council and the Superior Court of Justice, because of "urgency or exceptional public interest"[11].
 

6. RESPONSIBILITIES

ENRESA is the organisation responsible for waste management. It is a state-owned company that was set up in 1984 to deal with all the aspects of waste management.
The Ministry of Industry and Energy is responsible for legislation and licensing, together with the Nuclear Safety Council (CSN). CSN was set up in 1980 and deals with nuclear safety and radiological protection and reports directly to the Senate[12].
 

7. SPAIN'S WASTE POLICY

Initially, ENRESA searched for favourable rock formations of salt, clay and crystalline. The research program started in 1987 and at that time a repository was expected to be realised by 2020. By end-1990, some 25,000 km² of possible regions were found. Finally, some 30 areas were identified for further research[13].
Although ENRESA had identified the favourable areas for further underground research, work was halted in 1996 due to public opposition. In 1995, it became known among environmental groups that ENRESA had plans for the construction of underground disposal sites and a list of possible locations was released. They accused ENRESA of not having informed the public and of having inspected possible sites. Big demonstrations were organised, the first one in Belaleazar with 10,000 persons in 1996. The year after, some 15,000 demonstrated at Villanueva. It even grew to 20,000 in 1998 at Torrecampo[14]. And although decisions about underground disposal and test drillings were not to be taken before 2010, the protests have continued. Also in early 1999 a demonstration with thousands of participants was organised[15].
At the end of 1996, the Senate Commission for Industry established an inquiry commission to develop a new waste policy. It had to study the difficulties in finding a site for waste disposal and should include socio-political and public acceptance aspects. The commission’s work was expected to result in guidelines for the government to develop a legal framework for siting. The commission also received contributions from groups and institutions. The commission also visited other countries for comparison.

In the process, the government decided in early 1998 not to make decisions about final disposal before the year 2010. By that time the Senate should have evaluated the research being conducted. It was also decided to conduct site drillings only after 2010 and that a voluntary process had to be "expected" before these could take place. More research should be done on partitioning and transmutation.
For ENRESA, the government decision meant that no test drilling work could be done. Studies do continue with the use of existing geological data[16].
By the end of 1998, the inquiry commission had come to conclusions and made recommendations to the government on how to proceed with the waste policy. But its report was not adopted at the April 1999 Senate plenary meeting and the commission was disbanded. Although it is not really clear what the exact reasons were for the rejection of the darft report, it appeared to be for political reasons. Where the commission had reached consensus about certain issues, in the Senate the report did not get the broad support that was wanted by the government.
The government wanted the broad support of the main political parties to accept it, but the Parti Popular and the Socialist Party voted against it. "It did not reflect their opinions," said an ENRESA spokeswomen, "and political parties do not want to talk about high-level waste"[17]. It remains unclear how the Spanish government would now proceed. It was expected that after an adoption of the inquiry report, new laws would be developed to give a legal framework for Spain’s policy. New laws would be necessary for future siting activities[18].
ENRESA has been preparing a new General Radioactive Waste Plan. Although ENRESA has the obligation to submit yearly a proposal for a plan, the government has no obligation to approve it every year[19]. In July 1999, the cabinet agreed to approve the fifth plan. In this plan, the postponement until 2010 of decisions on deep disposal was included. Earlier plans fixed the decision for constructing an underground storage facility in 2000. According to Ecologistas en Accion, this delay has to do with upcoming general elections, public opposition and delays in international research and programs[20].
 

8. SUMMARY

As in other countries, plans for an underground storage or research program have faced public opposition in Spain. Siting work by ENRESA stopped in 1996 after this opposition. Although research continues with already known geological data, no site drillings are to take place before 2010. By that year the Senate has to decide on a final disposal strategy.
Government licensed the building of a spent fuel storage facility at the Trillo nuclear power plant. Environmental groups fear that this storage might become a national storage facility.
An inquiry commission was set up to give guidelines in the development of a new policy that could overcome public opposition. But after having written a draft report, the final outcome was unsuccessful. The report was not adopted in the Senate due to what appears to be political reasons.
 

9. CONCLUSIONS

1. As it remains unclear what the exact reasons were to reject the report, it looks more that the waste issue is so controversial that political parties have difficulties in dealing with it.
2. The realisation of an interim storage at Trillo, firstly meant for the station itself but with a possibility of expansion, can result in decisions being easily postponed in the future.
3. The political hesitations and the practice of postponing has not brought and will not bring an acceptable solution any closer.