WASTE MANAGEMENT | SIZE REDUCTION
Removing the contaminated surface of materials at the ageing plutonium processing plant at Sellafield reduce the number of plutonium- contaminated material (PCM) drums from thousands to just 90-120. Source: Sellafield Ltd
The proposed solution is to develop a robotic wall and
floor scabbling system, remotely operated to avoid humans entering a contaminated area. This would operate alongside a high efficiency vacuum extraction system to capture dust and debris and prevent the spread of contamination. This project demonstrates the breadth and complexity of the decommissioning challenge and the significance of every use case. Since many sites face similar challenges, a shared robotic solution also offers the opportunity to deliver benefits across the estate, reducing duplication of effort and accelerating deployment.
Graphite block size reduction Size reduction of graphite blocks is another critical decommissioning requirement, which is present in graphite-moderated reactors such as the British Experimental Pile Operation (BEPO) reactor at Harwell, which alone contains an estimated 25,000 graphite blocks. Across the UK, total reactor graphite waste is estimated at 85,818t, with a packaged volume equivalent to around 44 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Graphite blocks vary in size, so there is a need for them
to be reduced to achieve an efficient packing density in the correct LLW and ILW waste containers. Safe decommissioning depends on having a practical way to cut and package graphite blocks while controlling dust and contamination. The size of the challenge and the risk involved means exploring robotic solutions that cut them precisely to fit neatly into containers, while minimising and collecting the radioactive dust generated and avoiding human involvement as much as possible. RAICo’s concept is a remotely operated graphite size
reduction and packing cell, combining cutting, dust capture, robotic handling and waste packaging, working through teleoperation and semi-automated control. The solution will ensure reliability, require minimum maintenance and direct operator interaction. It will also form the lowest physical footprint possible as the equipment itself is likely to become contaminated in the size reduction process and require decommissioning at end of life, potentially generating further radioactive waste. Various size reduction methods are under consideration, including band saw cutting, diamond wire cutting, three-point bending and shearing, which all come with pros and cons relating to cost, dust generation, maintenance requirements, efficiency and the risks involved. While the project is in an early stage, the strategic driver
is clear, with the potential to provide an important enabling solution for decommissioning at BEPO Harwell and other Magnox and AGR reactors across the UK.
Scaffold pipe size reduction Contaminated scaffold pipes, typically three to four metres in length, have also posed a significant issue within
44 | October 2026 |
www.neimagazine.com
nuclear plants, as they cannot be placed in disposal drums without first being reduced in size. As with many other size reduction challenges, nothing is available off-the-shelf to automate this work, with robotic systems struggling to cut harder, denser materials due to load capacity limitations. As a result, the activity is still currently carried out by human operators, exposing them to both radiological and conventional safety risks. In response, a pioneering Scaffold Pipe Size Reduction
Station prototype has been developed. Integrating state-of- the-art robotics with a COTS saw, it is specifically designed to work in tandem with the quadruped robot, Spot, which collects the pipes and loads them into the station. Once loaded, the system operates across two cutting stations: the first reduces full-length scaffold pipes into smaller sections, with the cut size adjustable to suit disposal requirements. Spot then transports the cut pipes to the second station, which cuts them lengthwise, enabling decontamination via potential surface-cleaning techniques such as laser ablation. The new system enables Spot to transport materials to
the static cutting stations, overcoming the load capacity constraints that have traditionally limited quadruped robots in some heavy cutting tasks. Potential uses of the technology extend beyond scaffold pipes, opening new possibilities for remote decommissioning across a range of materials including cables, ducting and I-beams.
Developing the size reduction tools of the future The scale of the size reduction challenges across the nuclear decommissioning and waste management industry presents a compelling case for robotic solutions that can enhance safety, improve productivity and reduce the time and cost of delivery. Where size reduction tasks are simply too hazardous or impractical to be handled manually, developments in robotics could make tackling these materials achievable for the first time. Investing in solutions specifically designed for decommissioning challenges could also aid wider nuclear ambitions. In the UK, for example, the government plans to increase nuclear generating capacity through projects including Sizewell C; and build one of the world’s first prototype fusion power plants (Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production, STEP) by 2040. Robotic tools developed today in support of decommissioning nuclear legacy sites are likely to ease many of the size reduction challenges involved in decommissioning of the next generation of reactors. Robotics will not eliminate the complexity of nuclear
decommissioning and waste management, but it does have the potential to transform how some of its most challenging tasks are carried out. Size reduction is one of those tasks where huge gains can be made in safety, speed and cost through collaboration. In turn, this could reduce the burden on the taxpayer while, most importantly, protecting the people working on the front line. ■
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 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53
