select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
Fiona fox's blog
The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CORWM) released its long awaited report today with suggestions as to what should be done with the UK’s nuclear waste stockpile. The report, launched at the Science Media Centre, suggested that the best course of action is that the waste should be entombed in deep underground silos.
Ian Fells, Emeritus Professor of Energy Conversion at Newcastle University, said:
“Engineers have known for 50 years that deep geological disposal must be the way ahead. This report explores the mechanisms for achieving acceptance from a host for a site and concludes that a community package must be such that the host is better off after the siting than before. This is a realistic step forward in achieving public acceptance, it has been very successful in France.”
John Roberts, Department of Engineering Materials, University of Sheffield, said:
“Geological disposal, including boreholes, of immobilised waste is the correct solution for radioactive wastes. It is important that the government now heed the recommendation to progress without delay so that the momentum established by the CoRWM process is not lost.”
Mike Thorne, Director of Mike Thorne and Associates Limited, independent consultant on radioactive waste disposal, said:
“The proposed combination of interim storage with geological disposal is underpinned by decades of research and technical development. Although various issues remain to be addressed, I do not see any reason why these options cannot be implemented successfully on the timescales suggested. However, there is a need to ensure that the considerable technical expertise that has been developed in the UK in this area is transferred to a new generation of specialists that will need to be involved in implementing the proposed way forward over the next few decades.”
Professor Neil Chapman, Department of Engineering Materials, University of Sheffield, said:
“After long deliberation CoRWM has come up with a sound set of recommendations that are broadly in line with the most advanced and progressive developments internationally. It is good that they have recognised that this will be a long process and that most of the key decisions will be made by future generations. What is needed now is the will to get the process moving quickly, with the right organisational structures and with competent scientific bodies involved. This will require some new thinking and some new structures. And we can’t afford to be coy about issues like how to define community benefit packages for those willing to accept national responsibilities.”
Professor Charles Curtis, Head of R&D Strategy Nirex and University of Manchester, formerly RWMAC Chair, said:
“I very much welcome these recommendations. This is a major step forward in dealing with a problem that has effectively been avoided by successive administrations. The recommendations are the result of a thoughtful consultation process which has been open and transparent throughout. This is different from previous attempts to develop policy.
“The recommendations are consistent with international thinking (and practice) and very much in line with technical appraisals and judgements. Deep disposal must be the only truly long-term solution and practical issues have been very extensively researched – as CoRWM has found. The UK is in a stable part of the Earth’s crust such that it should not be difficult, technically, to identify a viable solution here.
“Government should now press ahead with all urgency. Openness and transparency must characterise the next stages as they have the last. The UK must continue to learn from those countries further down the line than we – notably Finland and Sweden where, in the context of identifying sites, there has been a fully open process with consultation and volunteerism leading to partnership.
“I am pleased, personally, to note Gordon MacKerron’s reference to RWMAC reports which certainly anticipated some of the needs identified by CoRWM. After a decade with RWMAC during which no real progress was seen on long-term solutions, CoRWM’s report is especially welcome.”
Chris Murray, Nirex Chief Executive, said:
“This report is a big and important step forward for the UK and represents real progress in dealing with this vital issue. The waste exists and must be dealt with regardless of any future new build. The recommendations are the result of a comprehensive and transparent consultation process and the full involvement of all stakeholders shows that lessons have been learned from previous failures in the UK.
“We fully agree that a deep geological repository represents the safest means of dealing with radioactive waste for the long-term. There is a strong scientific and technical consensus around this option and it puts the UK broadly in line with other nations tackling the same problem. A geological solution represents the only truly long-term option and is technically viable in the UK now.
“Progress on implementing these recommendations, if accepted by the Government, can only be made through the continuation of an open, transparent and independent process. We need to continue to learn from successful projects abroad, such as in Finland and Sweden. This is especially true in regards to siting, where there must be a completely open process, involving full consultation, a volunteer community and a partnership approach with any local community.”
David White, a fellow of the Institution of Chemical Engineers, said:
“The Institution of Chemical Engineers would endorse their comments that deep geological disposal of waste is the preferred method as practiced in Sweden and Finland. The UK has suitable geological structures that could be developed for disposal purposes.
“The UK has a substantial quantity of existing waste from military and power station use that is addressed by the CoRWM report. The question of waste from a new generation of nuclear power stations is totally separate from dealing with our existing problem. This has been acknowledged by the Minister, Malcolm Wickes. Advances in nuclear technology are such that the waste from new nuclear power stations is expected to be no more than 10% of existing nuclear plants. The gain in the efficiency of nuclear energy use also means that the small quantity of waste is also less radio-active. The alternatives facing society are to bury a small quantity of nuclear waste – under 2000 tonnes per power plant or bury 200 million tonnes of CO2 from a fossil fuelled plant of similar power output if power is to be generated without CO2 emission. Renewables cannot achieve the continuity of power supply needed to support a developed society and the cost of carbon abatement is very high because of the back-up fossil capacity needed.”
David J Ball, Professor of Risk Management, Middlesex University, said:
“CoRWM compliments itself on page 5 para. 8 on ‘an innovative and radical process that, in certain respects, is well in advance of those being pursued elsewhere’ and of which the UK could be justly proud. But, behind all the fine words, is this true? There is no mention of the following facts:
that CoRWM was savaged by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee (and others) for its inept use of natural and social science and engineering
that its own independent assessor noted with concern half-way through CoRWM’s process a lack of any science strategy (contrast the summary of Chapter 8 (p 56) which refers to ‘CoRWM’s recognition from the outset that its recommendations have to be scientifically and technically robust… the scientific strategy adopted was to use the best available science and technology at appropriate stages..’
that the Committee sacked its only health expert (Dr K Baverstock) following his questions about the refusal of the Committee to take proper account of technical knowledge (and some dubious contractual procedures)
that Professor David Ball resigned from the Committee through frustration over its approach to decision making which was evidently going to be grounded more in opinion than sound science
that only after publication of the House of Lords report, and following the imposition by DEFRA of its scientific apparatus on CoRWM, did CoRWM start to express an interest in science (previously the dominant view had been that ‘the objectivity of science is a myth’)
that The Royal Society has said that CoRWM should be superseded by: ‘…a body with a much stronger science and engineering capacity than CoRWM…’ itself a tacit recognition of CoRWM’s failure to take technical knowledge seriously
that CoRWM, with DEFRA’s connivance, seriously breached its Terms of Reference by not acting as an oversight Committee, but as a D-I-Y Committee. Experts in decision making are unanimous that failings of this kind undermine impartiality and credibility.
“Nor is it any surprise for ex-members that the SPINWATCH website has reported that:
“CoRWM is closely intertwined with the nuclear industry which has a vested interest in both new build as well as decommissioning.”
“Whatever one’s position on the nuclear industry, it was starkly obvious that CoRWM’s process had to be independent of close industry influence. The consequence for CoRWM’s recommendations is that however good or bad they are, they will be fair game for cries of “foul play” from detractors. Controversial issues of public policy cannot be decided by processes that are questionable.
“Overall, the CoRWM experience has been the antithesis of good decision making, having been infused throughout with political, commercial and self interests. Should deliberative processes of decision making be used again, may they be run by those who fully understand them.”
Dr Keith Baverstock, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Kuopio, Finland, said:
“I was originally appointed a member of CoRWM, the only one with expertise in public health issues related to ionising radiation. I protested at the course CoRWM was taking early on (January 2004 onwards) mainly because of the committee’s resistance to consulting scientific and engineering expertise, which was notably lacking on the membership. I was eventually sacked for refusing to accept that this expertise was not essential. Subsequently (March 2005) my criticism and that of others led Defra’s Chief Scientist to insist that such expertise was consulted by CoRWM.
“CoRWM claims to have adopted “a new approach” yet there is little if anything in the Recommendations that is new if viewed from an international perspective. Similar recommendations characterise approaches operated in a number of other countries, in particular in Finland and Sweden, for several years. The principle difference is in the lack of scientific environmental impact assessment(s) for their proposed solution(s). There is nothing in 15 recommendations that could not have been said three, or even more, years ago.
“CoRWM has confirmed its draft recommendation of a geological solution (without specifying the geology), in line with every other country that has considered the question. The report states:
“CoRWM concluded that, within the context of present knowledge, it had sufficient confidence in geological disposal as the best method for long- term management, and the relevant regulators believe that they could, in principle, accept a long- term safety case.”
“There are a number of difficulties with the value of CoRWM’s “confidence”. CoRWM has no expertise on geological sciences, no geologist, hydrogeologist or geochemist and no expertise on risk assessment or the public health implications of radiation exposure. It is, therefore, difficult to see what value can be attached to CoRWM’s “confidence” except that their recommendations follow those of others abroad who have examined the matter more rigorously and reached a similar conclusion.”
Dr Neil Milestone, Acting Director, Immobilisation Science Laboratory, University of Sheffield, said:
“CoRWM’s decision for geological disposal of nuclear waste is welcome, particularly the opportunity to explore alternatives to mined repositories with boreholes. This will reduce the burden on future generations for long term storage and monitoring. It is important that the routes by which the intensive research and development needed are established as soon as possible so the momentum established by CoRWM is not lost. We are pleased that the issue of managing fissionable materials has been raised and an early decision on handling these should be made.”
Fergus Gibb, Professor of Petrology & Geochemistry, Department of Engineering Materials, University of Sheffield, said:
“The recommendation that the UK should progress towards geological disposal for its radioactive wastes is very welcome. It is encouraging that CoRWM have not specified any particular method for eventual disposal so leaving open the option of potentially better alternatives to conventional mined repositories, such as very deep boreholes. Also to be commended is the commitment to urgent investment in research into the issues surrounding the long-term safety of geological disposal.”