Comment & Analysis
Radioactive waste is not as dangerous as people think; it can be reused and recycled and it can be stored safely deep underground.
I spent the end of last week taking part in a very interesting two day stakeholder conference run by RWM. RWM are Radioactive Waste Management Ltd, a company set up by the Government to deliver the long-term safe and secure disposal of radioactive waste. This was their second stakeholder conference designed to inform and provoke discussion about the challenges of geological long-term disposal of radioactive waste produced by power stations, the health sector and the military.
The idea behind geological disposal is that waste is disposed of permanently deep below the Earth’s surface (up to 1km) in a GDF (geological disposal facility) safely for hundreds of thousands of years.
I have been aware for many years that this is the preferred option for management of radioactive waste and that the biggest challenge RWM faces is finding a local community willing to host such a facility.
During the conference and based on the information shared by RWM and other stakeholders, there seem to be elements of the process in managing radioactive waste, that RWM and the Government are following, that might not be the most effective or resourceful. I strongly believe that GDF is the best solution for the secure long-term storage of radioactive waste, but I am concerned that we are not making full use of the waste before storage and I’m not convinced by the idea that community issues need to be completely resolved before we begin to develop a GDF.
Firstly, here are the details of the expected timeline for GDF development:
Activity
|
Expected timeframe
|
Launch Stakeholder Consultation
|
End 2016
|
Identify site
|
2017-2025
|
Begin site excavation and testing
|
2025-2040
|
Begin construction of site and disposal of wastes
|
2040-2140
|
Site closure
|
2140 onwards
|
I think that it is fair to say that this project has a long lead time giving us an opportunity to innovate efficient solutions for reusing and recycling wastes that contain significant energy potential before disposal. From the stakeholder conference, I took three key lessons:
Lesson 1: It’s not as dangerous as you might think
The way that we think about the impact of radioactive waste on human health is that it is very dangerous, when in fact in many instances this is not the case. I was fortunate to be sitting with Prof Gerry Thomas from Imperial College, an expert on the effects of radioactivity on the body. Gerry explained that the majority of wastes we are talking about emit Alpha particles that can be blocked from entering the body with something as thin as a piece of paper. For these particles to cause damage you have to get them into your body in some way, through ingesting them for example. To add weight to the argument that radioactive waste is less dangerous than we tend to assume, you can put them into the context of other wastes, such as human waste (think Cholera) or chemical waste (think cyanide or even carbon monoxide leaks), which are more likely to cause you harm or death from brief contact.
Lesson 2: Reduce, reuse, recycle?
Although there is no current GDF in the UK, decisions about the path to disposal are already being made. In the UK the new nuclear programme is underway, delivering up to an estimated 16GW of new power supply. As a consequence we will continue to produce waste from the incumbent power system, waste from the new system as well as a stockpile of legacy waste from the civil nuclear programme dating back to the 1950s. It is estimated by RWM that we may need to dispose of up to 650,000m3.
Some of this waste, including the 6% of high level radioactive waste, contains residual energy that continues to be given off in the form of heat. By reusing or recycling this waste, the volume could be reduced. However, due to concerns surrounding the safety of the waste much of it is being packaged up ready for long-term disposal already. We have tremendous nuclear expertise in this country and opportunities are emerging for new types of small modular reactors that could provide part of the solution for this currently unused resource. Utilising this waste would not mean undermining any security or safety precautions surrounding the management of high level radioactive wastes.
Lesson 3: Community versus society?
There is a challenge in ensuring that concerns from local communities are heard and addressed, but do not stifle the delivery of necessary and increasingly urgent infrastructure. Waiting for local communities to agree to national needs is suffocating many developments, particularly in the sphere of applied science and technology. To speed up the process, addressing local issues could be done in parallel to activities such as site investigations. This isn’t to say that the community and public perception of this new facility is any less important. It is vital that any community receiving new national infrastructure is part of the decision making process; the question is to what extent? We need to balance the concerns of a local community, with the needs of an entire country. Especially taking into account lessons 1 and 2!
We know that in the past the GDF project collapsed due to lack of communication with the local community, however the process has swung 180o the other way leaving one community to decide if, as a nation, we can move this development forward.
The delivery of a UK GDF is a critical part of our continuing infrastructure and as a society, both lay and technical, we need to get behind RWM and create the momentum this project needs. It is our duty to manage existing and future radioactive waste and we have an opportunity to do this in a way that reduces radioactivity, creates economic growth and builds an industry around the energy, health and military radiation industries. We should not be afraid to make difficult decisions when the advantages are so clear.