Nuclear panel suggests contest for waste burial

Let regions bid for £10bn storage site, says report · Incentive would be extra cash for roads and schools Ian Sample, science correspondentTuesday August 1, 2006The Guardian
The burial site for Britain's stockpile of nuclear waste should be decided by a country-wide contest in which regions bid to become home to the hole, a government advisory panel said yesterday.
In return for housing the underground repository, which would remain radioactive for centuries, the winning region would receive compensation in the form of improved roads, schools and other facilities. Better emergency services and expertise to monitor the long-term environment and health of the population would also be on offer.
The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, which was commissioned to find a long-term solution to the nuclear waste problem three years ago, published the proposals in its final report yesterday. It concluded that a £10bn concrete bunker, cut into solid rock at least 300 metres (1,000ft) underground, would be needed to store the waste - a pile large enough to fill the Royal Albert Hall several times.
Committee member Andy Blowers said it was crucial that the repository had widespread local support, and that the community should benefit. "The absolutely fundamental issue here is any community that's willing to participate will have its wellbeing enhanced," he said.
At present, an estimated 470,000 cubic metres of radioactive waste, including 2,000 cubic metres of high-level waste at Sellafield, is stored in surface vaults across the country. But the lack of any long-term disposal strategy has alarmed experts, who fear an accident or terror attack.
So-called "deep geological disposal" would require a repository that would take 35 years to build and 65 years to fill.
The proposal angered anti-nuclear groups, which said it gave the government licence to push ahead with plans for new reactors, as proposed in last month's energy review, and so add further to the waste stockpile.
The committee estimates that 10 new nuclear power stations would add five times as much spent fuel to the pile.
Gordon MacKerron, the committee chairman, said: "We don't want this to be either a red light or a green light for new nuclear build. The reality is there's a choice whether to make new waste, but there's no choice about having to deal with the existing waste. The UK has been creating radioactive waste for 50 years without any clear idea of what to do with it. We are confident that our recommendations provide the way forward. It will, however, take a long time to put in place all the component parts so now it's time to get on with the job."
The first task, he said, was to set up a group to oversee bids for a repository. Nirex, the nuclear waste body, would then order investigations to assess whether the sites were geologically stable.
The environment secretary, David Miliband, said public safety and environmental protection would be the government's priority. "We are committed to develop a strong partnership with local communities. We have no intention of forcing nuclear waste on any community."
A recent study by the British Geological Survey found that 40% of the country was geologically stable enough to house a repository, although experts believe that serious bids will only come from regions with existing nuclear facilities where communities already rely on the industry.
Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Chris Huhne said deep disposal was the "least bad solution", but added that it did not give government a reason to pursue new nuclear build. "The cost and the dangers of storing and securing the nuclear waste are so massive that frankly it would be folly to go down that route again. When you're in a hole of the sort we're in with nuclear waste, the first thing you do is stop digging.
"If you think about the last 100 years of British history, and we are in one of the most stable countries in the world, we have been through two world wars, we've had the Easter uprising, we've had a near German invasion, we've had aerial bombardment and we've had several decades of serious terrorism. This is not a political environment in which we should be taking the sorts of risks involved in making yet more of this extremely dangerous nuclear waste."
Greenpeace campaigner Jean McSorley said the risks in dealing with nuclear waste made the government's decision to go ahead with new nuclear plants "unbelievably reckless".
"The committee's findings make it abundantly clear that there is no failsafe way of dealing with nuclear waste. While they conclude that dumping waste into a deep repository is the least dangerous option currently available, they also acknowledge that many, many safety problems still remain," she said.
"Future generations will have to deal with this. We must not add to their problems by creating even more," she added.
Footnotes
Stockpile Britain has produced radioactive waste since the 40s. The total includes nearly 2,000 cubic metres of high-level waste, which can remain harmful for up to a million years.
Repository A concrete bunker built between 300m and a mile underground. Radioactive waste is first enclosed in tough containers, with the repository's surrounding rock preventing radioactive leakage. It will hold high and intermediate-level waste, and spent fuel rods.
Geologically stable Nirex, the nuclear waste body, has already identified 12 sites suitable for deep disposal, according to rock type and stability. Five of the sites are in Scotland and seven in England, including two near Sellafield.
New nuclear build Nuclear power contributes 20% of the country's electricity, but government advisors would like this doubled to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.Useful linkGovernment's report on the energy review