UK nuclear waste policy “incoherent and opaque"

by EcoStreet on November 27, 2007

in EcoPolitics, Toxic World

nuclear-waste.jpg
Photograph by Chris McKenna

This is a guest post by Pete Roche, editor of the No2nuclearpower website.

The Westminster Government completed yet another nuclear consultation on 2nd November. (1) This one was not about building new reactors, but how to get rid of the mess they leave behind, so was no less crucial to the nuclear industry’s expansion plans. It was the most recent stage in the “Managing Radioactive Waste Safely" process which began in 2001 as a progressive stakeholder consultation exercise, but after a series of misjudgements it now looks as though the Government may be about to pluck defeat from the jaws of victory.

In the first half of 2008 the Government will announce its new policy – most likely based on the idea of offering “community benefit packages" – bribes to you and me – to persuade communities to volunteer to host a nuclear waste dump. Then the search for a site will begin in earnest with an invitation to communities to express an interest in taking part in the siting process.

The history of government schemes to deal with this extremely dangerous waste has been a disaster going back as far as 1976 when eight sites were first selected for an underground dump. (2) The “Managing Radioactive Waste Safely" process looked as though it might work – having been based for the first time on much more intensive public consultation. But this latest stage which began in June 2007 got off to an inauspicious start. The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee called for it to be delayed because the institutional framework being proposed by the Government was “incoherent and opaque”. (3) And in an unprecedented move the Scottish Government refused to endorse the process at all saying it ruled out allowing deep disposal in Scotland. (4) (5)

The crux of the problem is that the Government has ignored important recommendations of the Committee it set up to look into the nuclear waste problem.

The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), established at the start of the process in 2003 (and reconstituted with almost completely new membership in 2007) recommended after three years’ deliberation, that deep disposal of nuclear waste was the best option. (6) But it also made other important recommendations which the Government has ignored. Most importantly it recommended that, because of the uncertainties surrounding the implementation of geological disposal, there should be a major R&D programme on both geological disposal and robust interim storage. There has yet to be any visible progress in this area. (7) Interim storage could be needed for at least 100 years, but there is also a risk of delay or failure of the repository programme. CoRWM also recommended a review to ensure the security of waste stores particularly against terrorist attack.

A year after the CoRWM report, the government is still ignoring its advice. It has eagerly accepted what it sees as the solution of deep geological disposal, but it has done little to address the vital prerequisites. (8) Storage has its own significant problems but represents the least worse option as it allows, rather than removes, choice for future generations, rather than subjecting them to a potential long-term radiological risk – a leaking nuclear waste dump. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the Government is trying to create the impression that it has a solution to the nuclear waste problem to further its aim of building a new generation of reactors.

The recent consultation fails to make clear that CoRWM’s recommendations deal only with legacy waste, and it also creates this misleading impression that other countries have successfully built a repository for this kind of waste. (9) CoRWM said it takes no position on the desirability or otherwise of nuclear new build, and that future decisions on new build should be subjected to their own assessment process. It specifically said it did not want its recommendations seized upon as providing a green light for new build – yet that is exactly what the Government has been doing. CoRWM warns that new build waste would extend the time-scales for implementation, possibly for very long but essentially unforeseeable future periods. Creating new nuclear waste raises completely new political and ethical issues which are quite different from the issues raised by the waste we have already created.

When The Guardian pointed out in June that West Cumbria is still widely seen as the favourite to host a waste dump (10), this prompted Chris McDonald, the lead inspector of the 1995-96 public inquiry into the proposed nuclear waste facility near Sellafield, to write highlighting evidence from the Inquiry showing the safety case was at best marginal. (11) Investigations should be moved elsewhere, he said. David Smythe, professor of geophysics at Glasgow University warned it would be “wrong” and possibly illegal in international law to use Sellafield which should have been ruled out Sellafield after previous research proved the area was unsuitable. There is clear evidence that West Cumbria possesses no suitable rocks. (12) But the Treasury is reported to be worried that Copeland Borough Council in West Cumbria may be the only Council which applies giving it the ability to hold the taxpayer to ransom demanding extra funding of perhaps as much as £1bn. (13)

CoRWM has been at pains to point out that it built up a fragile trust after three years of open and transparent dialogue with stakeholders and the public. But now it is “not persuaded" that the re-constituted CoRWM will ensure a continuation of public trust. A series of other misjudgements by the Government do not bode well either. For example Nirex was killed off without any consultation. Its incorporation into the NDA in what Nuclear Engineering International magazine called a rather “ham-fisted" and secretive way, left the process open to legal challenges, and a real danger we will see a “re-run of the last repository failure". (14)
The Government says spent fuel from new nuclear power stations could be accommodated in the same geological disposal facility as existing waste – even though this might increase the total radioactivity by a factor of up to five. (15) CoRWM’s view is that communities are unlikely to express a willingness to participate in a process that might lead to them becoming a host for a nuclear waste dump when it is unclear how much waste the community might be expected to accept.

Gordon Mackerron warned the Scottish Government against cherry picking from CoRWM’s “interdependent and inseparable package of measures" lest the whole ball of string unravels, setting us back to where we were before CoRWM was formed. (17) It now looks as though it is not the Scottish Government threatening the integrity of CoRWM’s recommendations, but the UK Government, which has thrown away the trust CoRWM painstakingly built up in its haste to justify the case for building more nuclear plants.

The no2nuclearpower website is in urgent need of funds to stay afloat. Now that Gordon Brown has made it clear he will give the go-ahead to new reactors -probably at Sizewell in Suffolk, Bradwell in Essex, Dungeness in Kent and Hinkley in Somerset – our mix of news and analysis will be needed more than ever by anti-nuclear activists all over the UK. Please send cheques, made payable to “no2nuclearpower”, to Pete Roche c/o Friends of the Earth Scotland, Thorn House, 5 Rose Street, Edinburgh EH2 2PR or you can make a secure credit card donation via PayPal.

(1) Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal, DEFRA, 25th June 2007.
(2) See History of Nuclear Waste Disposal Proposals in Britain, by Pete Roche
(3) Radioactive Waste Management: An Update, House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, June 2007.
(4) Nuclear Engineering International 25th June 2007
(5) Scottish Government Press Release 25th June 2007
(6) Managing our radioactive waste safely: CoRWM’s recommendations to Government, July 2006.
(7) Future R&D Needs, by Gordon MacKerron, CoRWM, June 2007.
(8) Guardian 12th September 2007
(9) Greenpeace Response to the MRWS Consultation 2nd Nov 2007
(10) Guardian 25th June 2007
(11) Guardian letters 28th June 2007
(12) Guardian 2nd Nov 2007
(13) FT 24th October 2007
(14) Corrina Thomson, Who shot the sheriff? Nuclear Engineering International, July 2007.
(15) CoRWM’s Radioactive Waste and Materials Inventory, July 2005
(16) Scotsman 30th June 2007

Advertisement: Reduce your CO2 footprint by as much as 2 tonnes/year & save up to £150 on your energy bills.

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

Mitch November 27, 2007 at 8:14 pm

“The crux of the problem is that the Government has ignored important recommendations of the Committee it set up to look into the nuclear waste problem.

The Crux of the problem is that there is no safe way to dispose of Nuclear Waste.

Mitch

Reply

Max Wallis November 29, 2007 at 3:03 pm

The Welsh Anti-Nuclear Alliance response to Defra’s Dump-it-Deep proposal include a paper by Hugh Richards demolishing the basics of the Defra MRWS document:
http://www.cynefinywerin.org.uk/index.php?docid=290
plus criticisms of the ‘consultation’ process that include the point that any decision in principle for a nuclear dump would be invalid because no SEA has been carried out.

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is a legal requirement for framework policies and programmes intended for use in development plans and consenting. It requires consideration of alternatives on a consistent basis, measured against environmental factors.

The CD’s s.5.35 proposes ‘criteria’ for site assessment which are said to derive from SEA regulations, but “may not be relevant" and “may have different weight" (5.36). They are not real ‘criteria’ (eg. “potential impact on people" and “infrastructure provision") but headings. A proper SEA of radwaste disposal (including options for “geological" disposal) has to precede site assessment and would formulate criteria for it.

There was much discussion of the need for SEA at the Cardiff Workshop, with the CCW rep saying the process is not only a legal requirement but has a good deal of experience in application (contradicting Defra claims). The Leeds workshop record does not mention it, while the Reading Workshop record contains the faulty description:
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) requires continual review of options
(i.e. review of projections, research on alternative storage)
This shows the inadequacy of Workshop dominated by official and industry representatives, when this crucial process issue is not posed in the consultation material.

SEA requires consideration of alternatives
not continual review of options as recorded at Reading. WAG does not indicate any other options, despite saying they are not committed to geological disposal with the Minister saying rather that she is "committed to securing the long term safety of radioactive waste".
• Defra admitted surface storage for 100 years is the fall-back option
• Division Head Robert Jackson said in his presentation the alternative to deep geological disposal is surface storage for 100 000 yrs.
• CoRWM’s alternative was surface storage for 300 years; they subsequently dropped this option because of uncertainty over institutional break-down over so long a period
• CoRWM’s critics proposed surface storage for ~50 yrs while options are adequately researched and (potentially) international agreements changed.
SEA is needed to ensure proper formulation of alternatives. There is advantage in keeping options open and not rushing to mega-£M contacts for site investigation.

SEA would address variants of “deep geological disposal", specifically an off-shore repository accessed from an island or from the shore (as in Sweden). Defra claims this is included in CoRWM’s and their definition, but they stress on a site near a ‘community’; their failure to say explicitly off-shore shows this claim is post hoc. The off-shore alternative has specific problems (eg. access; cost) and advantages (exposure to future local population) that an SEA would bring out.

Reply

John Media @ server hosting June 9, 2010 at 1:15 pm

Nuclear waste is really a topic for ages. I’ved read many articles regarding this it always comes up with those problems waste management. We’ll I say these waste are dangerous the government must set some time to discuss about this issues and to be resolved.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

privacy policy