'Deep disposal' for nuclear waste
April 27, 2006
A government advisory body is to release draft recommendations on the disposal of Britain's nuclear waste.
It is likely to recommend that much of the waste should be buried in deep disposal sites, but will take no view on where those sites should be.
The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management was set up three years ago and has taken evidence from experts and the public.
After further review its proposals will be presented to the government in July.
In an interim report released last year, the committee - CoRWM - set out four basic options for disposing of the estimated 470,000 cubic metres of radioactive waste for which at present no clear option exists.
This includes spent fuel rods, highly active waste from fuel re-processing, and the irradiated remains of reactors.
The options were: deep disposal, phased deep disposal, shallow burial of short-lived waste and interim storage.
- Deep disposal is the process of permanently burying the waste between 300m (980ft) and 2km (1.2 miles) underground in an area of suitable geology; where the rocks act as a protective chamber.
- Phased deep disposal is the same process except the waste will be retrievable.
- Shallow burial of short-lived waste refers to burying waste that is radioactive only for a short time just below the surface.
- Interim storage is a temporary management solution. Waste could be stored above the ground or just below the surface but it must be outside the biosphere.
CoRWM dismissed other notions such as putting the waste on the ocean floor or flying it into the Sun.
Since then the committee has engaged in a process of public consultations, stakeholder forums and expert assessments.
It is likely to recommend that most of the waste should be placed in deep disposal sites, though is not yet clear whether it favours "permanent" or "phased" disposal.
Favoured option
Public consultations have shown a preference for deep disposal over shallow disposal or long-term storage.
Many respondents have also expressed a preference for the "phased" option, keeping material accessible in case there are problems with the storage facility, or in case future generations should want to retrieve spent fuel rods to extract the fissile uranium and plutonium that remains.
But keeping material accessible could present a bigger security risk than "permanent" disposal.
Contributions from the public and from security experts have shown concern that shallow disposal or long-term storage of fissile material would present an unacceptable safety risk.
The committee may take a different view on the disposal of bulky material from reactor bodies.
Its consultations have met with opposition to the idea of transporting large volumes of this waste around the country, and it may recommend that these be disposed of at their existing sites.
The most difficult decision of all, on location, will be left to the government.
But CoRWM is likely to recommend that communities should be offered compensation for accepting a deep disposal site.
It will emphasise too that its recommendations do not amount to a "green light" for a new generation of nuclear power plants.
But is likely to reiterate that doing nothing with the existing waste is not an option.
A joint statement by security experts on its website declares that the ad-hoc storage solutions currently in use at various sites are vulnerable to terrorist attack, and says it is "...unacceptable for some vulnerable waste forms, such as spent fuel, to remain in their current condition and mode of storage".
If the government takes up CoRWM's recommendations it will be acting on an issue first raised as "urgent" in the UK 30 years ago.
It will be following in the footsteps of Finland, Sweden and the US which have all taken legislative decisions on where and how waste should be buried.
Print this page