RADWASTE MANAGEMENT | UK


Laying the groundwork


NEI looks at some of Radioactive Waste Management’s research activities, which are supporting preparations for a UK geological disposal facility


Waste policy varies among the UK’s devolved administrations. Scottish policy is for long-term management in near-surface facilities, while Wales endorses deep geological disposal but has a separate approach to engagement. The process of finding a willing community and suitable


site, and securing relevant consents, will be lengthy and comprehensive: it could be more than 10 years before a ground-breaking ceremony takes place. A GDF comprises a series of highly engineered tunnels


and vaults up to 1000 metres below the surface or below the seabed. Waste containers will be surrounded by man- made engineered barriers and natural solid, stable rock, safely isolating and containing the waste. A GDF can feasibly be constructed in one of three broad


rock types commonly found across the UK: higher-strength rock (eg, granite), lower-strength sedimentary rock (eg, clay) or evaporite (eg, rock salt).


Above: One of the boreholes for sealing at the Harwell site Photo credit: RWM


RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT (RWM), A subsidiary of the UK government’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), is responsible for developing a UK Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) to permanently dispose of higher- activity waste. As well as the public focus on a willing community and suitable site, a vast amount of technical underpinning is required to ensure a GDF will be safe and secure for thousands of years. The company has recently embarked on public


discussions in west Cumbria as part of its mission to identify a suitable site for a GDF. In line with a government policy set out in 2018 the process is based on community consent, and it will be preceded by a period of fact-finding and local engagement that is expected to last several years. Although the two groups where RWM is currently


embarking on discussions are in West Cumbria — the region around Sellafield where around 75% of UK radioactive waste is already stored — RWM has been raising general awareness across the rest of England for two years and anticipates that other groups will step forward to open talks in due course.


For RWM, the borehole sealing project marked a first opportunity to move from pure research to realistic on-the-ground operational activities


30 | May 2021 | www.neimagazine.com


Technical preparations RWM’s 65-strong Technical Directorate is the heart of the organisation, fundamental to ensuring that a GDF will be constructed safely and successfully. Ahead of a site being identified, RWM scientists and engineers have already spent years developing generic designs that will provide the necessary safety barriers. They have carried out exhaustive research and collaborated with organisations overseas. Regulators provide scrutiny at all stages. Once a prospective location is known, the focus


will switch to developing site-specific designs so that the engineered barriers work within a real geological environment (on land or under the seabed) to provide the necessary long-term safety. Last year saw a collaboration established with the


universities of Manchester and Sheffield that will harness research in disciplines such as geological disposal, environmental and materials sciences, radiochemistry, advanced manufacturing and communicating science. This Research Support Office (RSO) will receive £20 million of funding from RWM over 10 years. Its programme will include wholly funded research and research part-funded with the BEIS-sponsored UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), as well as other academic and industry partners. The RSO’s remit covers all aspects of deep geological


disposal. It has to build a comprehensive bank of solid evidence and ensure any knowledge gaps are plugged. A further aim is to nurture a generation of experts to keep the UK at the forefront of global GDF science. The first cohort of RSO PhD students will embark on their research projects


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45