ANALYSIS - Mike Davis
12 days before the announcement of the General Election (and we have no reason or evidence to think the events were linked), the Parliamentary Undersecretary of State at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) with responsibility for nuclear decommissioning, Andrew Bowie, along with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), put out a press release: Updated approach to managing nuclear waste (1)
(Regular readers will note that Andrew was the person that Graham Stuart – the previous Minister of State at DESNZ before he resigned to spend more time with his constituency - instructed to write a letter, saying that a GDF would not be constructed in South Holderness, following the mass campaign by South Holderness GDF Action and the subsequent council vote to withdraw its invitation to NWS.)
The release had three key messages:
(1) Focus on innovations in nuclear waste treatment techniques to increase recycling and
reduce impact on the environment
(2) near surface facility could dispose of less hazardous radioactive waste
(3) measures will allow quicker, safe decommissioning
In summary, it stated that given that the GDF would not be operational until approximately 2050, the approach would be to recycle waste, extracting isotopes for other uses, put low level waste (LLW) into near-surface, capped storage (similar to the GDF concept) at approximately 200m below ground. To manage other waste on site (at the nuclear power station etc.), and to send the lowest level waste to landfill.
The release says that this was in response to the consultation undertaken between March and May 2023 (2)
The approach of ‘Safe, Sooner’ was trailed in the NWS 2022/23 Annual Review, published in October 2023(3), where Martin Walksingshaw, Chief Operating Officer for Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) stated “If we can divert the waste through other routes – reduction, re-use, or recycle – it’s absolutely the right thing to do and part of our objective to ensure the right waste is in the right place.”
Martin followed this with a Blog piece in February 2024(4) stating “We’re always looking at treatment or other alternatives to disposal for waste that doesn’t need the protection of an engineered facility like ours. [GDF]”
In May 2024 Chris Macey, Waste Services NWS, authored a Blog headed Cleaning up our nuclear past: faster, safer and sooner How NWS is making sure the right waste, is in the right place with safe, sustainable and cost effective solutions(5).
So we now have in place by DESNZ, NDA and NWS a strategy of diversion of 98% of nuclear waste(5), and sending the remaining 2% to GDF disposal(5).
Which means:
· The potential for a ‘GDF lite’ - location unknown
· Recycling of waste, including extraction of isotopes for other uses
· Landfill for Low Level Waste (LLW)
· Some waste to be managed ‘in situ’ - this being a position taken by the Nuclear Free
Local Authorities (NFLA) and in Scotland the SNP. (Nuclear waste disposal is a
devolved issue.)
· The GDF for the 2% of Higher Activity Waste (HAW)(5)
This is a further complication for the arguments of objectors to the potential of a GDF site at Theddlethrope, Mid Copeland,
or South Copeland. Will their site be the GDF or the ‘GDF lite’? And as importantly for the rest of England and Wales, could the ‘GDF lite’ be placed elsewhere without all the restrictions/checks/balances outlined in the 2015 policy paper(6)?
Comentários