Dig deep to deal with nuclear waste

Dealing with radioactive waste is the public’s number one concern with nuclear power, but Keith Parker says they should be reassured by the plans in place to find a suitable site deep underground.

Nuclear waste is a contentious issue. In our annual poll it is the main topic the public tells us they want to know more about, and the one thing that concerns them more than anything else.

Part of this concern comes from lack of awareness of the facts about radioactive waste and its management, leading to fears around issues such as the potential impact of the waste on the local environment. However, the waste the nuclear industry currently deals with is not just from energy production, but also from military, industrial and medical uses, for example MRI scans.

Nuclear power is the only energy-­producing industry that takes full responsibility for the waste it produces and costs this into the end product. New nuclear projects must have waste disposal plans at the start of the programme. The cost of managing waste is included as part of the agreements reached between the developer and government, meaning future decommissioning costs are known and managed in advance.

The UK Radioactive Waste Inventory shows that 93 per cent of the radioactive waste in the UK is low level waste. It is disposed of carefully, but has only low levels of radioactivity. Intermediate level waste accounts for about 6 per cent of all radioactive waste, with high level waste 1 per cent of the total. The radioactivity of intermediate and high level waste decays naturally over thousands of years.

In 2006, an independent panel of experts, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) reviewed all the options for long-term management of higher activity radioactive waste and consulted widely with the public and expert stakeholders. It recommended that government follow international best practice by using deep geological disposal to deal with higher activity waste.

There is a global consensus that deep geological disposal is the best solution, with countries such as Finland and Sweden already advanced in securing regulatory approval to build waste disposal sites.

Geological disposal facilities tend to be dug at a depth of between 200 and 1,000 metres. The facilities provide safe, permanent disposal of higher activity waste by using a number of engineered and geological barriers working together to isolate the waste from the surface environment and to contain the radionuclides associated with the waste.

Following the 2006 CoRWM report, the UK government set up a process for identifying a suitable location for a geological disposal facility (GDF) through engagement with volunteer communities. But the process came to an end in 2013 when the communities involved decided not to proceed to the next stage of technical assessments. Government decided to consult widely and identify lessons learnt in considering an updated process for finding a site.

In July this year the government issued a white paper setting out its revised plans for finding a suitable site. The need to secure the support of the local community was enshrined in the process, but the government also recognised the need to ensure communities had more information upfront before they decided whether they wanted to discuss hosting a GDF any further. Over the next two years the government will work with experts and the public to consult around community investment and representation, and the appointed GDF developer, Radioactive Waste Management (RWM), will carry out a high level, national geological screening exercise.

Previously a division of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), RWM was spun off from the NDA as a wholly-owned subsidiary in April 2014. This was in response to the government’s and the regulator’s desire for clarity in accountability and responsibility for building a GDF.

RWM will spend the next two years working on national geological screening. This will be a desk-based exercise, drawing all relevant available geological information together to produce maps and other information so when interested communities come forward, they will be able to have an open and honest discussion about what is currently known of the potential geological suitability of their area, alongside socioeconomic, environmental and other matters.

This initial screening exercise will not rule communities in or out. RWM is running an engagement and consultation programme to garner a broad range of views and expertise for the screening exercise.

Hydrogeology, the study of groundwater, will be key in assessing the suitability of a site and building a safety case. RWM’s chief geologist, professor Bruce Yardley, is an international authority on how fluids interact with rocks and says: “In building a safety case for any GDF it is critical to understand the local geology and hydrogeology, to ensure that the GDF is isolated from potable groundwater.

“The extent to which we build hydrogeology into the national screening guidelines, or leave it to site-specific investigations will, however, depend on the available data and we welcome suggestions from industry and other experts.”

The permitting process for a GDF will include examination of safety cases covering all aspects of the disposal system, including the constructed facility, its surrounding environment and the transport infrastructure for moving waste to the disposal facility.

Currently the generic safety case is focused on understanding the scientific and engineering principles underpinning geological disposal.

Experience has shown several potential improvements in the previous siting process. The government’s new long-term plan, based on extensive consultation with the public and key stakeholders, should lead to a much better understanding of the issues, such as geology, and more informed decision making for communities.

This plan will provide a permanent solution to deal with the UK’s waste both from nuclear power and other sectors. The local economy that agrees to house the site will also benefit from community investment arrangements, as well as from the long-term job creation such a facility will bring. In the long run, the GDF should not only benefit the nuclear industry but the community too.

Keith Parker, chief executive, Nuclear Industry Association