TL: NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL SO: Greenpeace UK DT: April 1, 1993 Keywords: nuclear power radioactive safety risks greenpeace gp reports europe / (GP) Group 6 United Kingdom updated 1st April 1993 [12 pgs] United Kingdom **************************************************************** The first commercial reactor in the UK was commissioned in 1956. There are currently 11 Magnox and 7 Advanced Gas-cooled reactors in operation. Following the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in 1990, from which nuclear capacity was excluded, attempts are being made by the state-owned Nuclear Electric to extend the lives of the ageing Magnox reactors. Many are showing corrosion of the reactor vessels and failures of welds etc. Several will be shut down permanently soon, but some are likely to have their shutdown dates postponed. A PWR is under construction at Sizewell in Suffolk, and a planning inquiry for another at Hinkley Point in Somerset reported, in 1990, that approval should be granted. No decision on whether to proceed has yet been taken. There is to be a major review of nuclear prospects in the UK in 1994, although this may be brought forward following the energy White Paper dealing with colliery closures. **************************************************************** Policy Sea dumping of L/ILW was practiced from 1949, at sites in the NE Atlantic and around the Southern Approaches. Mounting public opposition resulted in the National Union of Seamen refusing to handle nuclear waste, and the last dump took place in 1982, when nearly 3,000 tonnes were dumped 500 miles off the north-west coast of Spain. A `voluntary' moratorium was introduced by the London (Dumping) Convention in 1983, and is still in operation, subject to the final IGPRAD report, expected in 1993. A Disposal Programme, aimed primarily at HLW, began in the late 1970's, but following abortive attempts to carry out site investigations for the development of a deep HLW repository in 1980, and the abandonment of the Programme in December 1981, the government set up the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive (NIREX) in 1982. It was mandated to implement government policy for the disposal of L/ILW only. NIREX was set up under the ownership of BNFL, the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB), the South of Scotland Electricity Board (SSEB) and the United Kingdom Atomic EnergyAuthority (UKAEA), and reformed as a Limited Company in 1985, with each parent organisation having shares and seats on the Board. Through BNFL, the UK is a major reprocessor of spent fuel from around the world. A vitrification plant for high level liquid wastes was commissioned in February 1991. Despite considerable opposition and numerous claims of a lack of a proven market, BNFL has also developed the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP). This is currently (April 1993) subject to several reviews, including one by a House of Commons Select Committee. It is by no means certain to open. (See below under HLW for discussion of waste management consequences). Intermediate level reprocessing wastes are currently stored at BNFL's site at Sellafield in Cumbria. The government is advised on radioactive waste matters by the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC), set up in 1978. It consists of academics and nominees from the nuclear companies, together with trades union representatives. In November 1991 the Government announced that RWMAC was to be removed from the control of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution (HMIP) and be directly answerable to the Department of the Environment. A revised membership was announced, including some people with environmental contacts. L/ILW A shallow land disposal site for LLW has been operated by British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) at Drigg, in Cumbria, adjacent to its Sellafield site (formerly Windscale), since the 1960's, constructed in glacial sands and gravels. Following criticism by the House of Commons Select Committee on Environment, in 1986, BNFL now use engineered concrete trenches, and have recently introduced supercompaction. The site is expected to be full sometime early in the next decade, depending on the source of the estimate. It was originally proposed to continue shallow disposal for LLW and deep disposal in an anhydrite mine in Cleveland for ILW. However, due to intense local opposition, the Cleveland site was abandoned in 1985. Three further shallow sites were added to the original, Elstow, near Bedford, in February 1986. These were Fulbeck in Lincolnshire, Killingholme in South Humberside and Bradwell in Essex. There was again intense local opposition involving widespread civil disobediance. These sites were abandoned in May 1987, in what NIREX described as a `major change of approach.' Deep disposal is now the preferred option for L/ILW, and following a 2 year nationwide survey, two sites were chosen in 1989 for further investigation, both at existing nuclear complexes. They were Sellafield in Cumbria and Dounreay in Caithness, Scotland. NIREX originally planned to identify one of the two sites for detailed investigation by 1992, hold a Public Inquiry in 1994, and begin operations by 2005, whilst having also developed an underground laboratory and carried out detailed research. The likelihood of success on this timescale has always been open to doubt, and as is outlined below, even NIREX are now not expecting to apply for planning permission until at least 1997. Following a succession of drilling related problems, the first exploratory borehole at Sellafield was abandoned in late 1989. The main reason for the failure was that the hole was not drilled vertically, in an attempt to avoid predicted faulting in the sub- surface. Pressure to complete the hole rapidly put undue pressure on both drilling equipment and operators. Two attempts to drill on the same site were in fact abandoned. **June 1990** (1) Following the failure of the first borehole at Sellafield, a further attempt is to be made to the east of the site, beginning August 1990. Return to the site of the original hole will be necessary in order to fully calibrate seismic surveys in the area. Permission was granted to drill at Dounreay in June 1990, and this too is expected to begin in August. This permission was granted by the Secretary of State for Scotland, despite refusal by the local Authorities concerned. **September 1990** (1) Drilling of hole #3 has started at Sellafield, to the east of the site. The borehole commenced on 25th August 1990. By 4th Sept. it had reached 176m, and had been stopped for installation of the main surface casing string. The plan involves 6 months drilling, followed by 3 months hydro and geophysical testing. Total Depth is planned at 1500m, with up to 1000m of Borrowdale Volcanic Series (BVS) expected. Drilling etc is being carried out by the KSW Deep Exploration Group,involving Kentings, Soil Mechanics and a West German firm, Walter Aktiengesellschaft. The contract supervision is being handled for BNFL by Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners (2) Drilling at Dounreay will also be carried out by KSW, with Gibb's again supervising, this time for AEA. Work here is not expected to begin until October. Several other contracts are also being let, covering the testing of the hole(s) and several surface and airborne geophysical surveys (3). **8th October 90** (1) The hole at Sellafield is currently at 460m. Top of Brockram was at 407m. Top of Basement is expected at 475m. Surface vibroseis surveys are planned end Oct/Nov to extend the present coverage to the current borehole site. Further geophysics is planned to take place at end of this year. The replacement for hole #1 (#3) is expected to begin in December 1990, being drilled concurrently with the first. It will be approx 100m away from the original hole, but this time will be vertical. **25th October 1990** (1) The Sellafield hole is currently at 509.6m There was no Carboniferous Limestone, with top of ?Borrowdale Volcanics at 467m. No weathering was evident at the junction. It is proposed to begin Borehole #4 in April 1991, with possibly 2 holes on the same site (for cross-hole geophysics and hydro testing). This site, plus 2 others, is actually part of Phase 2 of the site exploration work, and assumes selection of Sellafield as candidate site. Drilling of the first hole at Dounreay has begun. An application to drill up to 6000 shallow boreholes (approx 60-100ft) in connection with a seismic survey, has been refused by the local planning authorities. **December 1990** The first borehole at Dounreay has penetrated the Basement rocks at approx. 400m depth, but AEA will not release information regarding the nature of the material encountered. **21st January 1991** According to a director of NIREX, Dr R Flowers, a full safety case will not be presented to a public inquiry into a deep repository, now proposed for 1993. It is intended only to cover purely planning issues, and seek approval for an access shaft. NIREX might be prepared to forego the estimated 400 million development costs if later work showed the site geology to be unsuitable. The long-term performance of a repository would be a `novel issue' to be dealt with by the HM Inspectorate of Pollution after any inquiry. This is in direct contradiction of the RWMAC suggestion of a two-stage inquiry, allowing safety to be tested in public. (4). **January 23rd 1991** (1) The borehole at Sellafield (#2) is down approx 1200m, and is planned to go to 1600m. Testing of the Borrowdale Volcanics is being carried out periodically. A replacement hole (#3) is now also being drilled at the site of the original, abortive, hole. This is down some 650m, still in St Bees Sandstone. Planning permission for a further 3 holes, to be drilled very near to the site of hole #2 (east of the main Sellafield site), has now been granted. Drilling is still intended to start in April. In addition to the drilling, 100km of land seismic surveying and350km of marine seismic are still being conducted. The hole at Dounreay is reported as being in Moine Metasediments, some 4-500m down. **July 23rd 1991** NIREX have announced that Sellafield has been selected as the candidate site for a low and intermediate level waste repository, although refusing to totally rule out Dounreay until a final decision is taken to proceed. The NIREX timetable envisages a planning application being made to proceed at Sellafield in the Autumn of 1992. This would only be for surface installations and an access shaft. It is not intended to submit a full safety case to a Planning Inquiry, expected in 1993, not least because the bulk of the proposed 25-borehole site investigation programme will not have been drilled by then, let alone interpreted. **September 1991** Local authorities are pushing for a Planning Inquiry Commission, rather than an Inquiry, to enable all aspects of safety and concept feasibility to be examined before permission is granted. RWMAC chair, Professor John Knill, has stated that he would support at least a 2-stage Inquiry, enabling all results of the site investigation programme to be fully examined prior to the start of the construction phase. He has also expressed concern at the speed with which NIREX is proceeding (6). **December 1991** NIREX have produced an amended design concept for the repository. It incorporates two 8 kilometer-long spiral drifts, surfacing within the Sellafield site, down which waste and supplies would be taken, using a rack and pinion rail system. The proposals are claimed to be in response to public concern over the visual intrusion of winding towers. **January 1992** NIREX have announced their proposed timetable for drilling the 25 deep boreholes and up to 50 shallow holes (7). This assumes that planning approval is given for each borehole, without delay, when requested from the relevant planning authority. This was following the refusal of Cumbria County Council to approve drilling of borehole 10, situated between the Sellafield site itself and borehole 5, currently in progress. The programme, as suggested, means that by the time of the start of the Planning Inquiry, currently envisaged as Autumn 1993, only 11 boreholes would have been drilled, with only data from 4 included in the Safety Case. Planning permission has also been refused by the Lake District Planning Board for 2 boreholes (numbers 8 and 9) within the area of the National Park. **March 1992** Cumbria County Council have appointed Environmental Resources Ltd (ERL) as consultants, to advise them on issues associated with the NIREX proposals. Following promises by NIREX to make more data from drilling available to ERL, Cumbria County Council have now approved planning permission for 3 more boreholes (numbers 10, 11 and 12). Following the announcement of the upcoming general election, local Labour MP Jack Cunningham has said that he is not in favour of a dump under land from which wastes cannot be retrieved if necessary, but that he is in favour of a dump in principle (8). This is despite his earlier assertion that any repository should be under the seabed, off the coast of Sellafield. A report by Greenpeace, published in 1991, discussing Labour Party policy on the repository (9) and a recent review of the offshore option by a group of independant geologists (10), have cast doubt on Cunningham's preferences being possible at Sellafield. **16th March 1992** In a letter to Greenpeace, the Labour Party have stated that they envisage waste being disposed in such a way that it can be constantly monitored and retrieved if necessary. They do not believe the current NIREX proposals allow this be done (19). **19th April 1992** A report in today's Independent newspaper (11), has revealed some of the results of the first 4 boreholes at Sellafield, just published by NIREX (12). Preliminary hydrogeological data suggest that what groundwater flow there is at depth in the Borrowdale Volcanic Series (the target host rock), is faster than anticipated. In addition, the water appears to be under sufficient pressure that upward flow could occur, providing a migration link between the repository horizon and overlying rocks which are used as a local water supply. Professor John Knill, RWMAC chair, and Professor John Mather, (formerly chief hydrogeologist at BGS and now ERL lead consultant to Cumbria County Council), have both expressed the opinion that the NIREX safety case is compromised. NIREX have responded by saying that they do not expect to have a complete idea of site conditions without carrying out much of the underground tunnelling required for repository development. At present, there is no plan to then return to any public inquiry before the final operating licence is granted. **22nd April 1992** Cumbria County Council's consultants, ERL Ltd, have submitted a report which claims that there is actually no need for a repository to be built in the immediate future, given possible improvements in disposal practices at Drigg. This would enable more detailed site specific studies to be carried out and, if necessary, for other sites to be evaluated also (13). They also suggest that an underground laboratory should be developed, as in Sweden, to allow in-situ research to be conducted. **April 23rd 1992** A report by RWMAC, written as a response to the new NIREX design, is sharply critical of the new proposals, saying that to drive long, inclined tunnels, with such tight curves as suggested, "is at the limits of international tunnelling experience" (14). The report also questions the effects on repository integrity of using a soft friable grout as a backfilling medium, suggesting that the whole multi-barrier concept may be compromised. Echoing concerns raised earlier in a report published by Greenpeace (15), RWMAC say that driving the tunnels through water-bearing strata in the way proposed needs considerably more site investigation and interpretation than is currently envisaged by NIREX. **May 1992** An article in the Independent newspaper has quoted NIREX spokesman Harold Beale as saying "we have always started fom a point of zero containment, so anything else is good news" (16). This was in response to criticism, inter alia, of the plan to deliberately puncture waste containers before disposal in any repository, so as to allow gases generated by radiolysis and microbial action to escape. NIREX have previously claimed that waste containers would survive intact for centuries. **2nd June 1992** NIREX have announced that the decision to submit a planning application for a repository at Sellafield, originally scheduled for Autumn 1992, has been postponed until at least Autumn 1993 (17). It is claimed that the revised timing will not lead to increased costs. Whilst claiming that geological investigations carried out to date show Sellafield to be a potentially safe site, NIREX now say that they have "insufficient information, and a fuller understanding is needed..". They claim that refusal of planning approval for holes 8 and 9, within the Lake District National Park, is causing "a significant obstacle" to progress. **June 1992** The cost estimate for the repository is now running at approx 3.8 billion, including research, development and planning,according to latest reports (18). This compares with 2.5 billion as originally quoted by Nirex in 1991. No mention of the increase was made in the June Nirex statement. **July 1992** It has emerged that at a RWMAC meeting on July 2nd, Nirex admitted that mathematical errors had been made in their March report. Calculated potential return times of groundwater were incorrect by up to 2 orders of magnitude. A RWMAC report, critical of the Nirex site investigations to date, is to be published by end-September. It was this report which highlighted the error, and, having been circulated prior to the June postponement announcement, is thought likely to have been generally responsible for it. **October 21st 1993** NIREX today published a consultative document, Report 327, outlining the proposal to develop a Rock Characterisation Facility at Sellafield, as the so-called "next stage" of work there. This would involve sinking 2 shafts and driving a limited amount of underground roadways. The cost of the RCF is given as approx. 125m. The timetable given by NIREX appears to be unrealistic, allowing little or no time for in-situ borehole monitoring prior to shaft sinking, and little or no time for underground experimentation prior to a planning application for the repository proper. These problems concerning monitoring and experimentation have also been brought out by RWMAC, in a press release put out on the same day (20). In it the need for an intensive programme of in- situ borehole testing prior to shaft sinking was made very forcefully. **December 1992** Following an appeal by NIREX against refusal of planning permission for 2 boreholes within the Lake District National Park, a special inquiry has been held in Cumbria. Discussion was allowed by the Inspector of the site selection procedure which resulted in Sellafield being chosen as a potential site. Under cross-examination, a NIREX geologist admitted that no more was actually known about Sellafield at the time of its selection than about anywhere else in the UK. He refused to identify the other shortlisted sites. NIREX also accepted that the results from the first boreholes, as reported in Report 263, were mainly responsible for bringing forward the plans to develop the RSF. The need for the RCF shaft-site monitoring boreholes has now been accepted by NIREX, and planning permission for as many as 13 boreholes around the site has been applied for. NIREX currently envisage that shaft sinking would start in early 1994. In a report published in February 1993 (21), RWMAC claim that this is unrealistic, not allowing adequate testing time in the monitoring boreholes. RWMAC estimate that shaft sinking would be unlikely to begin before mid-1995 at the earliest. This itself assumes that all aspects of planning permission, drilling, instrumentation and stabilisation of the monitoring holes is completed by end 1993. Planning permission for the boreholes within the Lake District National Park was granted by the Inquiry Inspector in February 1993. Whilst allowing NIREX to continue its drilling programme, the Inspector said that "It is true that some apparent causes for concern about the geology and hydrogeology have emerged.." (22). **22nd March 1993** NIREX have appointed yet another consortium to assist in the conceptual design of a repository and the RCF at Sellafield. The consortium consists of Allott and Lomax, consulting engineers, Rools-Royce and Associates, and mining engineers E. Heitkamp GmbH, from Germany (25). HLW As previously mentioned, up until 1981 a Disposal Programme was underway, involving boreholes and other research. This was abandoned following widespread public opposition, and only generic research is now carried out, with some collaboration in the work at Stripa in Sweden (now closed) and elsewhere. No potential location for a repository has been announced, and no definite timetable exists to locate one. Storage of these wastes is currently the only management strategy. **August 30th 1991** (5) In its 1991 Annual Report, RWMAC has suggested that the possibility of using the infrastructure of the planned L/ILW repository at Sellafield, to access an adjacent HLW repository, should not be ruled out. **March 1993** Whilst this is not the place to discuss the argument over the opening of the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) by BNFL at Sellafield, the issue of waste generation, storage and development is playing an increasingly important part. RWMAC met recently for a special 2 day session to discuss long-term waste management scenarios in the UK, and THORP and its consequences was high on the agenda. RWMAC have also been advising the Government on the issue of waste "substitution", whereby instead of returning all waste generated by reprocessing to the client supplying the original spent fuel, an "equivalent" amount of activity would be returned. This would mean that more HLW, in vitrified form, would be returned, whereas more of the voluminous L/ILW would be disposed of in a UK repository, if built. BNFL's pre-1976 overseas contracts involve some 1500 tonnes of spent fuel, and did not include any return clause. The total reprocessing wastes from these contracts will represent approx. 10% of total waste arisings in the UK by the year 2000 (23). The waste not already dumped at Drigg is being stored prior to the development of a deep repository. If waste substitution is not approved for post-1976 contracts, there will be increased return transports and potential storage problems in the client countries. If wastes are returned, the need for a repository in the UK is diminished, and if THORP were not to open, much of the need would disappear, at least in the immediate future. However, BNF have also said that substitution could result in an increase in capacity for any NIREX repository of up to 10% on original estimates, because of the volumes of L/ILW involved (24). Sources: 1. BNFL (internal contact) 2. New Civil Engineer 11/08/90 3. Ground Engineering July/August 1990 4. RWMAC 11th Annual Report November 1990 5. RWMAC 12th Annual Report August 1991 6. "A Deep Dilemma", Border Television, 18th October 1991. 7. Letter from NIREX to Cumbria County Council 21/01/92 8. Whitehaven News 19/03/92 9. "Labour Party Policy and the Sellafield Nuclear Waste Dump" Publ. by Greenpeace UK November 1991 10. "Sellafield and a Deep Under Seabed Nuclear Waste Repository" March 1992 11. The Independent on Sunday. 19/4/92 12. "The Geology and Hydrogeology of Sellafield". Publ. by UK NIREX, March 1992. 13. "Waste Arisings, Packaging and Transport Safety". Environmental Resources Ltd. Report (ITA/3) to Cumbria County Council, April 1992. 14. "Response to UK Nirex Ltd's revised design for the Sellafield Repository." Publ. by RWMAC, April 1992. 15. "Tunnel Vision or Blind Ambition?" PJ Richardson, Consulting Geologist. Publ. by Greenpeace UK, February 1992. 16. The Independent 21/5/92 17. NIREX Press Release, 2/6/92 18. Nuclear Engineering International June 1992 19. Letter from Labour Party to Greenpeace UK, 16/03/92 20. RWMAC Press Release, 21/10/92 21. RWMAC response to UK NIREX Ltd's Consultative Document on a Rock Characterisation Facility. RWMAC, February 9th 1993. 22. Letter from The Planning Inspectorate to UK NIREX, 11/2/93 23. NuclearFuel, 15/2/93 24. Financial Times, 5/3/93 25. NIREX Press Release, 22/3/93