The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) published on 7 November four new Position Papers reviewing and updating the committee’s position on key issues that have been raised by stakeholders in discussion and in response to consultations related to geological disposal. The position papers cover:
Support for disposal rather than indefinite storage
The committee reaffirms that based on the best evidence available, geological disposal remains the preferred choice for the long-term management of radioactive waste. CoRWM also notes that whilst there is presently no viable alternative to geological disposal, development of alternative management options should continue to be pursued through monitoring and/or participation in national or international research programmes.
Safety requirements of geological disposal
The committee concurs with the view of Barlow Geosafety that geological disposal will only be sanctioned and licensed for construction and operation at a particular site, if the independent regulators are satisfied that any safety issues have been satisfactorily resolved. The committee notes that such safety issues could be of a considerable number and must all be addressed by Radioactive Waste Management’s disposal system Safety Case. One of CoRWM’s ongoing roles will be to ensure that such concerns are ‘mapped’ into the safety assessment and safety case and successfully resolved.
Selecting a geological disposal facility (GDF) site based on the best geology
The committee has reviewed their previous advice and reaffirmed the view that any move towards ‘choosing the best geology’ at the start of a GDF siting process cannot be justified on technical grounds as each geological setting will have advantages and disadvantages. It was this conclusion that led CoRWM to recommend to Government in 2006 that the siting process should be based on a voluntarist approach, with the evaluation of geology and other siting factors commissioned once an interest had been expressed.
Transport considerations for radioactive materials
The committee reviews previous and more recent work and has concluded that any detriment suffered [by the public] as a result of transport of radioactive materials is very largely due to the conventional risks of transport (e.g. collision, derailment) with very little which can be attributed to the characteristics of the actual materials being transported.
The committee notes that concerns have been raised about security and that these must be taken on board by the relevant authorities. However, they conclude that there is currently little evidence that the transport of radioactive waste to a disposal facility would pose challenges outside the envelope of activities already undertaken for many decades.
The position statement concludes that ‘with all other things being equal’, transport is an activity which should be minimised, however they note that such minimisation must be prioritised against other siting attributes and resource uses of any radioactive waste management scheme. This must be done proportionately and with a clear evaluation of changes in other attributes. This is totally consistent with the site evaluation approach recommended on this news summary by Barlow Geosafety.