(June 30, 2006) "Within the present state of knowledge, CoRWM considers geological disposal to be the best available approach for the long term management of all the material categorised as waste in the CoRWM inventory when compared with the risks associated with other methods of management." CoRWM's draft recommendation 1.
(647.5756) Welsh Anti Nuclear Alliance - Disposal is not 'management' it is the cessation of control and containment. Groundwater travels for up to 600 miles. In the management of radioactive waste to ensure its future containment and stability, it is the length of time over which it remains a hazard that produces a philosophical problem. Geological disposal shifts the risk far into the future in order to lessen the risks to the generation that created the hazard. This approach is unethical on grounds of intergenerational equity. The technical problems with deep disposal of high-level long-lived radioactive waste are such that the concept cannot be said to be 'proven'. Scientific uncertainty over the future stability and containment of radioactive waste deep underground precludes irreversible actions being taken.
Given the degree of uncertainty involved, and setting the present state of knowledge against approaches for the long term, the only 'decision' that can be taken now that will not appear foolish and irresponsible in fifty or a hundred years from now is to retain control over the waste through management rather than to relinquish control over it through disposal.
If storage of radioactive waste on the surface is regarded as too vulnerable to terrorist attacks then near-surface underground storage should be considered to balance ease of management against degree of protection. Deep underground 'management' makes little sense, and is quite obviously designed to encourage three irresponsible human traits: (a) 'out of sight out of mind' (b) inertia and (c) indolence, so that the waste will be left where it is regardless of any misgivings about its containment and stability. Deep underground disposal is presented as helpful to future generations because it bequeaths our radioactive legacy in a form that they do not have to deal with. In reality it gives them a legacy in a form that they cannot do anything about.
CoRWM should make it clear whether or not the waste disposed of would be monitored.
CoRWM states that it takes no position on the desirability or otherwise of nuclear new build.
There is a contradiction in CoRWM's approach on current waste management on the one hand, and its approach to new build on the other.
The current 'muddling through' approach to radioactive waste management is clearly unacceptable to CoRWM. Given that any new nuclear power stations would produce large volumes of highly radioactive spent fuel that would have to stay on each reactor site the hazard (and vulnerability to terrorist attack) thus created far outweighs the current hazards of radioactive waste.
It is insufficient to claim that 'any additions to the inventory should be the subject of an additional stage in the process' of establishing a radioactive waste site. CoRWM should make it clear to Government that any degree of public support for the management of present radioactive waste would be jeopardised by the creation of yet more hazardous waste around the country.
Without this degree of clarity CoRWM's work will rightly or wrongly be seen as the 'thin end of the wedge' rather than helping to address a finite nuclear legacy in an orderly way.
Source and Contact: Hugh Richards, Welsh Anti Nuclear Alliance, P.O. Box 1, Llandrindod Wells, Powys, LD1 5AA, Wales
Tel/Fax: +44 1982 570362
Email: hughrichards@gn.apc.org
WANA Appendix
In response to Q570 "Could you explain the concern you have about nuclear waste?" posed by a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee during a House of Commons inquiry into Energy in Wales on March 21, Hugh Richards offered the following response.
.... back in 1980, when there was a test-drilling programme for high-level radioactive waste disposal, I was working for the local authority and I was told, basically, "Stop it; go out there and stop it." As a local government officer, that was like giving me 007. Basically, I did do a lot of 'phoning round, I spoke to a lot of people and one of the persons that I spoke to was Sir Kingsley Dunham, who had just retired as the Government's Chief Geological Adviser, and he was quite worried. He had made a speech about his worries about plutonium, long-lived radioactive waste, and it was for that reason I tracked him down and had a conversation with him. Basically, I asked him, "What are the geological characteristics of a place deep underground where you could dispose of radioactive waste?" What he said was that it needs to be flat-bedded, sedimentary rock which has not been subjected to tectonic activity, it has not been crumpled up by mountain-building, with a very low, or no, water table and no population; in other words, a desert in the middle of a continent. I said, "Well, where does that leave us, in Britain?" and there was just silence; so I assume that is the sort of advice he was giving to the Government before he retired. Everything we have had since is looking at the possibility of disposing of radioactive waste in Britain and this is where I find it is terribly, terribly simple. Can you dispose of it, which means relinquish control over it, or not? If you cannot relinquish control over it, because you have not got enough scientific certainty about what will happen to the method of encapsulating it and putting it underground, then you have to store it.
The full (uncorrected) transcript of the oral evidence given to the committee can be found at http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/welsh_affairs_committee.cfm
CORWM'S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
-
Within the present state of knowledge, CoRWM considers geological disposal to be the best available approach for the long-term management of all the material categorised as waste* in the CoRWM inventory when compared with the risks associated with other methods of management.
-
CoRWM recognises that there are social and ethical concerns that might mean there is not sufficient agreement to implement geological disposal at the present time. In any event, the process of implementation will take several decades. This period could last for as long as one or two generations if there are technical difficulties in siting or if community concerns make it difficult, or even impossible, to make progress at a suitable site.
-
These uncertainties surrounding the implementation of geological disposal lead CoRWM to recommend that a programme of interim storage is required as a contingency and therefore must play an integral part in the long-term management strategy.
-
Therefore, CoRWM recommends a staged process of implementation, incorporating the following elements:
-
A commitment to the safe and secure management of wastes through the development of an interim storage programme that is robust against the risk of delay or failure in the repository programme. Due regard should be paid to:
-
reviewing and ensuring security, particularly against terrorist attacks;
-
ensuring the longevity of the stores themselves;
- minimising the need for re-packaging of the wastes; and
-
A commitment to an intensified programme of research and development aimed at reducing uncertainties at a generic and site-specific level in the long-term safety of geological disposal, as well as better means for storing wastes in the longer term. Appropriate R&D should be undertaken into alternative management options.
- A commitment to ensuring that flexibility in decision-making within the implementation process leaves open the possibility that other long-term management options (for example, borehole disposal) could emerge as practical alternatives.
-
ensuring the longevity of the stores themselves;
-
reviewing and ensuring security, particularly against terrorist attacks;
-
A commitment to the safe and secure management of wastes through the development of an interim storage programme that is robust against the risk of delay or failure in the repository programme. Due regard should be paid to:
-
CoRWM has not yet decided whether to make recommendations regarding the precise form of geological disposal. This will be an element in the next round of public and stakeholder engagement.
-
If a decision is taken to manage uranium, spent nuclear fuel and plutonium as wastes, they should be added to the inventory and immobilised for secure storage followed by geological disposal. There must be clarity about the inventory that is to be disposed of by the time that communities are invited to express a willingness to participate in the implementation process (see below). Any additions to that inventory should be the subject of an additional stage in the process.
-
Community involvement in any proposals for the siting of long term radioactive waste facilities should be based on the principle of volunteerism, that is, an expressed willingness to participate. Participation should be based on the expectation that the well being of the community will be enhanced.
-
Willingness to participate should be based on the provision of community packages that are designed both to facilitate participation in the short term and to ensure that a radioactive waste facility is acceptable to the host community in the long term.
- Community involvement should be achieved through the development of a partnership approach, based on an open and equal relationship between the potential host community and those responsible for implementation.
-
Willingness to participate should be based on the provision of community packages that are designed both to facilitate participation in the short term and to ensure that a radioactive waste facility is acceptable to the host community in the long term.
-
Community involvement in any proposals for the siting of long term radioactive waste facilities should be based on the principle of volunteerism, that is, an expressed willingness to participate. Participation should be based on the expectation that the well being of the community will be enhanced.
-
If a decision is taken to manage uranium, spent nuclear fuel and plutonium as wastes, they should be added to the inventory and immobilised for secure storage followed by geological disposal. There must be clarity about the inventory that is to be disposed of by the time that communities are invited to express a willingness to participate in the implementation process (see below). Any additions to that inventory should be the subject of an additional stage in the process.
-
Therefore, CoRWM recommends a staged process of implementation, incorporating the following elements:
-
These uncertainties surrounding the implementation of geological disposal lead CoRWM to recommend that a programme of interim storage is required as a contingency and therefore must play an integral part in the long-term management strategy.
-
CoRWM recognises that there are social and ethical concerns that might mean there is not sufficient agreement to implement geological disposal at the present time. In any event, the process of implementation will take several decades. This period could last for as long as one or two generations if there are technical difficulties in siting or if community concerns make it difficult, or even impossible, to make progress at a suitable site.