3 The management of nuclear waste
45. Before the provision of electricity by nuclear
power could be considered again, the people of Scotland would
need to be convinced that it is safe - in particular, that the
management and storage of such waste is not going to pose any
threats to them, their families or the environment.
46. Such a task has not been made any easier by recent
media reports which quote a former health physics surveyor at
the Dounreay plant stating that, inter alia, "highly
radioactive wastes was pumped into the sea and evidence of the
pollution was covered up by managers who had a "reckless"
disregard for public health".[25]
These revelations appear to be have been verified by Dounreay's
Project Manager who, according to the report, said that past practices
at Dounreay "could be considered reckless if not culpable
today."[26]
47. If there had been time to do so, the Committee
would certainly have recalled UKAEA to be questioned on these
allegations. If true, they would, at the very least, cause a lack
of confidence in UKAEA's activities and, at worst, possibly cast
doubt on any of their reassurances, such as they gave to the Committee
when questioned about the safety of the shaft used to store intermediate-level
waste:
"…..The rock in the vicinity of the Dounreay
shaft is extremely impermeable; water does not flow through the
rock. It does, however, flow through the very thin fissures between
the Caithness slabs, and that results in a very, very small quantity
of radioactivity ending up in the environment. By the time, of
course, it reaches the environment it is so dilute that it is
no longer intermediate-level waste, it is low-level waste. Nonetheless
UKAEA recognises that the shaft is an inappropriate disposal facility,
and before we can remove the material that is in there it is necessary
to stop water getting into the shaft….. we have a project
underway now, two years ahead of programme, to inject a grout
curtain around the shaft to prevent it leaking. The effect of
that in fact is to remove the principal hazard which is posed
by the shaft, which is a hazard to the environment rather than
a hazard to anyone in the immediate vicinity…..That actually
has a very, very good impact on the environment. At the moment
we remove in the order of 20 cubic metres of water per day from
the Dounreay shaft. This is filtered, processed as appropriate,
and discharged to the sea. Once we isolate the shaft from the
environment, even that modest amount of radioactivity will not
reach the sea, so the shaft will be rendered relatively benign
until we get the material out of there."[27]
48. We understand from informal discussions with
UKAEA that the only radioactive waste generated at Dounreay for
which there is currently no long-term strategy (other than conditioning
and storage) is intermediate-level waste, which is the subject
of a UK-wide review by the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management.[28]
This is the same for all of the Scottish nuclear sites being decommissioned
- ie, Dounreay, Hunterston A and Chapelcross.
49. As regards the regulatory aspects, the situation
in Scotland is not altogether straightforward, with the storage
of waste at licensed nuclear sites in Scotland being reserved
to the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate of the Health and Safety
Executive, whilst the disposal of radioactive waste at licensed
nuclear sites in Scotland is devolved to the Scottish Environment
Protection Agency.
50. Similarly, the public needs to be convinced that
some of the 70 tonnes of plutonium currently stored at Sellafield
cannot, for example, be stolen by terrorists or agents of rogue
states and converted into either dirty-bombs or nuclear warheads
for ICBMs.
51. The Committee considers that, because the Government
has not yet come to a decision about how to manage the nuclear
waste that has already been created, it sends the wrong signal
and remains a matter of concern.
52. We are, therefore, encouraged by the response
given by the Minister of State for the Environment, Elliot Morley
MP, when he was being questioned by the House of Lords Science
and Technology Committee on that Committee's inquiry into Radioactive
Waste Management, when he confirmed that he had instructed
the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWRM) to finish
its work by July 2006.[29]
This timescale was reconfirmed by UKAEA when they gave evidence
to us.[30]
53. This is a positive development. However, in its
Report, the Lords' Science and Technology Committee pointed out
that, since 1997:
"progress towards finding a long-term solution
to the problem of radioactive waste management has been bedevilled
by delay….Mr Morley assured us that CoRWM will be able to
deliver its recommendations to Ministers by July 2006. This timetable
must not be allowed to slip, nor must CoRWM's report be followed
by further procrastination".[31]
54. We
concur absolutely with the House of Lords Science and Technology
Committee's conclusions on the management of nuclear waste; we
hope that the Lords Committee, and this Committee's successor,
will keep the matter under review, and ensure that neither CoRWM
nor the Government allow the July 2006 target date for a final
decision on how to manage such waste to be missed.
25 See The Sunday Times, 6 March 2005, pages
1 and 2. Back
26
Ibid. Back
27
Q 27. Back
28
Established in 2003 to review options for managing solid radioactive
waste, and to recommend what should be done with the wastes for
which no long-term strategy exists. Back
29
House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, 5th
Report of Session 2003-04, Radioactive Waste Management,
HL Paper (2003-04) 200, Qs 34 - 36. Back
30
Qs 23 - 25. Back
31
Ibid, paragraph 3.4. Back
|
