Following listeners’ questions about public health and safety of a geological disposal facility at Yucca Mountain, a local radio station asked their ‘expert’ doctor to respond to these concerns. The doctor provides reassuring advice — subject to the facility being built and operated safely!
She makes the following points:
She concludes, that the establishment of a radioactive waste facility at Yucca Mountain “does not pose immediate or long-term health threats assuming no natural disasters or acts of terror cause a disruption in storage.”
For more detailed initial health advice in the UK, you can visit the websites of the National Radiological Protection Board (now part of Public Health England), the Health & Safety Executive, or the Society for Radiological Protection.
The general consensus of those attending the first public consultation workshop was very positive. Everyone largely felt that the event had been helpful in building a better understanding of the issues, and that it would help improve the quality of their responses to the consultation.
The event attracted a broad range of interests, including engineering and construction sectors, broader business groups, trades unions, local authorities, conservationists and anti-nuclear campaigners. The notable omission was anyone from community or place-based organisations. This is not for the want of trying, as GDFWatch knows well because we are at the forefront of reaching out to the sector. Hopefully there will be greater representation of these groups at the regional events around the country that BEIS is organising during March — and we will be continuing to encourage community groups to attend.
The workshops are very interactive, with little in the way of presentations, and a heavy focus on group discussion and shared learning. Delegates were provided with video and written material before the event, and you are expected to come to the workshop with a basic understanding of the consultations, and a list of questions from your initial reading of the documents. This approach works well in bringing out the different perspectives, questions and issues of groups representing diverse societal interests. The format doesn’t allow for detailed analysis of specific questions, but that is not the purpose of the workshop. BEIS have offered to publish a FAQ sheet online to address key issues raised during the workshops.
I don’t think it would be helpful to set out all the issues discussed, because that may unwittingly shape discussion at future workshops. In general terms, there were areas where people felt the consultation documents were too vague (but as BEIS pointed out, often it is on those areas they are seeking public experience and advice to help flesh out), and an acceptance that for some issues a certain vagueness was necessary to retain flexibility, because each community will have its own individual needs.
BEIS have worked hard to develop their proposals in an open, inclusive way, and the workshops are a further opportunity for the public to shape the final policy. We urge everyone to participate in the process and to have your say. There are still seats available at the workshops in Birmingham (27 Feb), Bristol (1 March), Darlington (6 March) and Lancaster (20 March), and at the technical workshop for the National Policy Statement in London (22 March). Contact the workshop’s independent facilitators, 3KQ, to register your interest (register@3kq.co.uk)
The day after President Trump’s request for funding to restart work on the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository (see article below), Nevada officials approved a US$5.1m contract for legal support to fight the proposal. Robert Halstead, head of Nevada’s Nuclear Projects Agency, said the state lacks the expertise in dealing with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to do the work itself. The contract is for two years.
But in an editorial, a local newspaper said a debate was necessary:
“The truth of the matter is this: every day, high-level nuclear waste is piling up in short–term facilities that were never meant to handle the current load. We are not nuclear experts. We will not pretend to know the answers, or to even know whether or not pursuing Yucca Mountain is something the state definitely should (or definitely should not do). But the time is long overdue for our politicians to start talking about it. So often, Yucca is simply a non-starter. Besides Rep. Mark Amodei, R-Nevada, who represents much of [the Yucca area], the [Nevada] congressional delegation has long been quick to stand firmly against Yucca at every turn. But at the end of the day, if it’s not here, where? If there’s some other option, then that’s perfect. But what if there isn’t? What will Nevada — and the country writ large — do then?”
_____
There was instant political reaction to President Trump’s renewed US$120m bid to restart work on the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository, dividing opinion in Nevada.
Budget Bid
The bid is included in the Department of Energy’s $30.6 billion budget request for 2019, which was published yesterday (11 February) as part of Trump’s proposed US$4.4 trillion federal budget. The US$120m would restart the licensing process, and establish an interim storage program to address the US’ growing stockpile of nuclear waste. Announcing the Yucca funds request, US Energy Secretary Rick Perry said: “We have a legal responsibility. We have this waste out there. We need to have this issue addressed.”
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which must determine whether Yucca Mountain is safe for long-term storage, is also seeking more than $47.7 million for the licensing process at Yucca Mountain. The site was designated by Congress in 1987 as the sole site to permanently store nuclear waste, but was halted by the Obama administration as part of a deal with then US Senate Majority Leader and Nevada Senator Harry Reid to pass the Affordable Healthcare Act (‘Obamacare’).
The announcement once again pitted urban and state representatives against rural communities and their local representatives.
Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval, and both of the state’s two US senators, Republican Dean Heller and Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto condemned the budget proposal. However, in the region where Yucca Mountain is sited Nye County Commissioner Dan Schinhofen and the local US Congressman Mark Amodei welcomed the announcement.
Voices against Yucca
In a statement Governor Sandoval said:
“We continue to disagree on the necessity to invest any money at all on this ill-conceived project. Yucca Mountain is incapable of safely storing the world’s most toxic substance and Nevada will continue to oppose any efforts to dump nuclear waste in our state.”
Senator Dean Heller added:
“A state without a single nuclear power plant should not have to shoulder the entire nation’s nuclear waste burden. Instead of pursing a failed project that has already cost taxpayers billions of dollars, the Administration should refocus its efforts on the only sustainable path forward: a consent-based approach.”
His fellow senator, Catherine Cortez Masto, elaborated on the consensual approach required:
“There is bipartisan agreement in Nevada’s congressional delegation, and widespread opposition amongst Nevadans against Yucca Mountain. I will continue to fight this Administration and call for consent-based citing for federal projects. Local voices must be heard.”
Local voices for Yucca
But according to the Commissioner of Nye County (where Yucca is sited), local people want the facility to progress:
“We haven’t been allowed to see if the proposed site is even safe for construction. All the President’s budget does is allow for the science to be heard on the safety of Yucca Mountain. Included in the budget request is $3.6 million for Nye County as the host community for the repository. I hope our opponents can articulate why they oppose funding to help the elderly, veterans and everyone that needs medical assistance. I hope they can explain why they are afraid of hearing the science.”
The issue is also being used by a Republican Senate candidate who is seeking to beat incumbent Dean Heller in local primaries later this year. Danny Tarkanian said it would prompt a boost in federal spending and job creation in the state:
“With Yucca Mountain, Nevada has the opportunity to become a world leader in the reprocessing of nuclear fuel and eliminate 97 percent of our country’s nuclear waste. In pushing to revive the project, the Trump administration recognises how important Yucca Mountain is to Nevada and America. If done right Yucca Mountain would create thousands of jobs and bring billions of dollars in revenue to Nevada, spurring a new age of technological innovation in the Silver State and creating a safer and cleaner America.”
Uncertain future still remains
Despite the local furore, it still remains uncertain whether Congress will actually approve the Yucca Mountain funding. The US$120m had originally been requested a year ago for the 2018 federal budget. Although approved (and increased to US$150m) by the House of Representatives, the bid fell foul of discussions in the Senate to reach a deal on last week’s compromise federal budget.
Nevada may be divided, but it appears to stand alone amongst the other 49 states, where waste sits in surface interim storage facilities, and where there is an appetite to build a repository and remove the waste. This article from Illinois provides an excellent overview of the history of the Yucca programme and the of other states’ concerns about prolonged surface storage.
Whatever happens, one can’t help but wonder if Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman might be intimating the Washington DC horse-trading yet to come. At the White House for an announcement on the president’s infrastructure plan, she told a local newspaper that while she did not talk to Trump about Yucca Mountain, she said nuclear waste could not be shipped there until improvements are made: “You dare not send it to Yucca until the infrastructure’s fixed,” she is reported saying.
The announcement prompted considerable local and national US media coverage. Links to these stories can be found on our international media review page.
Radioactive Waste Management (RWM), the appointed GDF delivery body, have now announced the full membership of their new Advisory Council. The Advisory Council is designed to support RWM by providing broad-based expertise, a balanced perspective, and strategic direction, as the GDF siting programme moves towards its launch phase. Members include:
Panel members’ short biographies:
Lorraine Baldry OBE (Chair) has experience in a wide range of industries including technology, broadcasting, distribution, healthcare, water, real estate and financial services. She has held a number of Board-level positions and is currently Chairman of London and Continental Railways, Schroder Real Estate Investment Trust, Inventa Partners, and Hydroxyl Technologies.
Norman Harrison (Deputy Chair) has held a number of senior roles in the UK nuclear industry including CEO of the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) and when with British Energy, Station Director at Heysham and Sizewell B nuclear power stations. He currently has a portfolio of non-executive and advisory appointments including the UKAEA (Fusion programme) and is Deputy Chair of the Board of Governors at Manchester Metropolitan University.
Sonia Davidson-Grant is an experienced Director, Non-Executive Director and Board Member of private and public sector organisations, an international researcher and a strategic advisor to governments in the UK and the Middle East.
Dai Hudd has spent his career as a trade union official. He is currently Deputy General Secretary of the Prospect trade union and also holds lead policy responsibility for the energy services industry.
John Markham OBE had a distinguished career in the chemical industry, holding a range of executive management positions, before moving into regeneration where he has held a number of senior roles in the public and private sectors.
Dr Mike Naylor has had a long career in the oil and gas industry, rising through Shell to become Vice President Technical, Global Exploration. He has wide-ranging experience in developing technical standards, processes and execution of major capital projects and brings a deep expertise and understanding of sub-surface evaluation and risk assessment.
Michael Prescott is an experienced communications professional with a proven track record of building and motivating teams to award-winning standard, and managing in high-pressure environments. His previous employment includes roles as Director of Corporate Affairs at British Telecom, Managing Director Corporate Comms and Public Affairs at Weber Shandwick, and Political Editor at The Sunday Times. Michael is a Trustee of Bloodwise and a former member of the Government Communications Board.
Howard Shiplee CBE is a recognised construction industry professional with extensive experience in the delivery of high value infrastructure projects, including as Project Director Hong Kong International Airport Terminal and as Director of Construction for the Olympic Delivery Authority.
Morag Stuart has held various senior roles working in the defence and aerospace industries and is currently Director of Commercial Improvement at Defence Equipment and Support, part of the Ministry of Defence. Morag also sits on a Procurement Advisory panel for HS2 Ltd.
Eugenie Turton CB is a former senior government servant who now works as a Non-Executive Director in the private and charitable sectors. Previously Eugenie was Director General for Housing and Planning, responsible for the government’s public service improvement programme, and creation of London’s new mayoral government.
Robert Upton CBE has held positions as Director of Planning in Hong Kong, Chief Executive of Rushmoor Borough Council, Secretary General of the Royal Town Planning Institute, Deputy Chair of the Infrastructure Planning Commission and subsequently Senior Examining Inspector for major infrastructure at the Planning Inspectorate.
Update of original news (below)
__________
Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) have announced the appointment of Lorraine Baldry OBE as Chair of their new Advisory Council.
According to RWM, “the Advisory Council will provide expertise, balanced perspective and strategic support to RWM as it moves into a significant phase of its programme to deliver a geological disposal facility. Its members, including experienced leaders from a variety of business, engineering, infrastructure and society backgrounds, will provide vital input to one of the most complex and important long-term projects ever undertaken in the UK.”
Lorraine Baldry hails from the Financial Services sector, and is also currently:
She is an Honorary Member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), a Past President of the British Property Federation, and was previously Chairman of the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation.
RWM have not yet published the full membership, Terms of Reference, or objectives of the Advisory Council, but this expected shortly. RWM have previously said that their Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) would be subsumed within this new expert advisory group.
BEIS have released a new video explaining their policy and the consultation process — it can be viewed here. They have also announced dates for their public consultation workshops. The dates and venues are in the Events section of our homepage. Everyone is welcome to attend these free events, but pre-registration is required by contacting the independent facilitators running the events at register@3kq.co.uk
Working With Communities consultation: initial view (25 Jan 2018)
Initial comment on today’s publication by BEIS of Public Consultation documents, from GDFWatch Executive Director Roy Payne, who previously advised the Government on it’s engagement strategy:
“Such an important and contentious decision on where to bury our radioactive waste cannot be left purely to politicians, planners and professed-experts – ordinary people need to be involved in that process.
“Today’s consultation is not about what we do with our radioactive waste, but how we find a suitable site to dispose of it. Geological disposal has the same level of international and scientific consensus as Climate Change. While few people would choose to have a GDF near them, there is a recognition the waste facility has to go somewhere. How we choose that site, how we treat the people living there, and what say they have in decision-making, are the core issues on which the Government is now consulting.
“At first sight, today’s consultation lays out a unique and original consent-based approach to developing the UK’s infrastructure. It is also offers a potentially radical new model of how communities can participate in shaping their own social, economic and environmental destiny. It is effectively proposing the creation of a new form of democratic process which allows long-term decisions to be made outside of, and unfettered by, the traditional political cycle of local elections.
“The main concern is the potential back door re-introduction of a Local Authority ‘veto’. If this happens, it would set the clock back five years. It would completely dismiss all the evidence and advice the Government has actively sought, as well as received. Far from empowering communities, it would make a mockery of Ministers’ claim to be placing communities at the heart of the policy. Local Authorities have a central role to play, but hosting a GDF is such an important decision that the community as a whole should decide. It is not for local politicians alone to impose a solution or to prevent the public from even finding out about the issue.
“We would urge the community sector and wider public to get involved in and contribute to the discussion. The broader issues of community and participative democracy were raised earlier this work by the Commission for the Future of Localism. It is quite clear that community rights and the siting of a GDF are too important to be entrusted into the hands of a few politicians.”
GDFWatch will be responding to the consultation documents in more detail once we have had time to digest their contents.
The UK Government published two consultation documents today:
And the Welsh Government published its own Working With Communities consultation document.
Taiwan outlined its plans for finding a geological disposal site in a Report published today.
The country has decided to prioritise looking for granite-based locations for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste, but acknowledged that such locations were limited to only a small part of Taiwan. The proposal is the conclusion of an 11-year study to evaluate suitable host rock suitable for storing spent fuel
Energy company Taipower, which is responsible for managing radioactive waste, said it will give priority to assessing the building of a national geological repository in granite because Sweden and Finland have also chosen granite-based sites for their waste repositories. But it has not ruled out other host rock choices.
Following similar geological assessments to those being conducted in the UK and Japan, the Taiwanese have already ruled out certain areas such as those near active geological faults, volcanoes and water catchments.
With those areas ruled out, Taipower believes only about 4,480 sq kms in Taiwan proper and its offshore islands, or one-eighth of Taiwan’s total land area, can host nuclear waste disposal sites.
Taipower will now move on to the second phase of the waste fuel disposal plan — assessing and identifying specific potential sites — which is expected to be completed in 2028.
Once candidate sites have been identified, the current plan is to conduct detailed site investigation and testing from 2029-2038, and submit repository design and license applications during 2039-2044. Subject to regulatory approvals being granted, it is expected that construction will start in 2045, with first emplacements of waste in 2055.
A week on from the Environmental Court’s ruling, and it would seem nobody in Sweden is any the wiser about what happens next. The general view seems to be that this is a hiccup, and everything will eventually continue as planned.
But don’t expect that to happen anytime soon, and at least not until after this autumn’s national elections in Sweden.
Anders Lillienau, who chaired the Court’s Hearings, is reported as saying that while they had significant concerns about the safety of the copper canisters, the Court did not otherwise see any barriers to the safety of the repository. The Court has asked SKB, the organisation responsible for the repository, to provide further information on copper canisters to address their concerns. It is understood that SKB are preparing such information, and reportedly told a community meeting in Östhammar earlier this week that they intend to provide that information later this year.
Anders Lillenau has also made clear the ball is now in the Government’s court: “In the end, it is still the case that the Government may make the overall assessment whether or not this will be allowed.”
A Swedish Government spokesman, Magnus Blücher, explained that this was a complex issue and it was too soon to say what the Government might do, or when.
Back in Östhammar, the local referendum planned for 4 March has been postponed. The referendum was advisory, and any final decision on agreeing to host the repository has to be taken by the local council. A spokesman for Östhammar Municipality says that it is too soon to know when the referendum and council vote will now take place.
Local resident Åsa Lindstrand chairs a resident’s group opposed to the repository. She told the local newspaper that she was pleased but surprised by the Court’s decision, but feels little will change:
“Actually, nobody else in Sweden wants this nuclear fuel repository, so the rest of Sweden would probably be lucky if someone takes it. The municipality is so marinated by SKB that it is not easy to say ‘no’. For us who live here, it’s more about noise and traffic than about the copper capsules, it’s happening before they get there at all.”
Her sense of pyrhhic victory is shared by environmentalist Johan Swahn, who added, “but only if the government stays passive and the copper canister issues raised by the Court become a matter solely for SKB.” His organisation, MKG, has raised concerns about the long-term safety of copper canisters over many years. While delighted that the Court accepted the case presented by leading corrosion scientists, he now wants the Swedish Government to guarantee an open scientific re-evaluation of the issues relating to copper canister corrosion.
The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM) have their own views. They also submitted an opinion to the government, alongside the Land and Environmental Court. While the Court considered SKB’s application could not be supported on its current basis, SSM believes that the nuclear fuel company has shown long-term safety requirements can be met by a step-by-step test under the Nuclear Technology Act. SSM is proposing that the Government decide on several conditions, including that SKB may begin construction of the plant only after SSM has tested and approved a preliminary safety report.
With elections pending, it seems likely that the programme has been shoved back a year. Given the glacial pace of every national geological disposal programme, one more year of waiting after three decades of debate and analysis may not in the end make much of a difference to the Swedish programme.
Professor Malcolm Morley OBE has been appointed as the new Chair of Radioactive Waste Management Limited (RWM), the organisation responsible for delivering the UK’s GDF.
He was already serving as an Independent Non-Executive on RWM’s Board, and was previously Chief Executive of Harlow Council until his retirement last autumn.
Commenting on his appointment, he said:
“I am honoured to be leading RWM as Chair at this critical time. RWM’s mission to deliver a long-term solution for the safe disposal of higher-activity radioactive waste will protect future generations and our environment from the legacy of waste the UK has created over the past 60 years.
“RWM’s outstanding expertise in areas such as science and engineering, and its commitment to community engagement, will help deliver an infrastructure project like no other we’ve seen before in the UK and I am delighted to be a part of the team.”
The full announcement from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) can be read here.
Britain’s oldest campaign group focused on geological disposal has recently re-affirmed its support for geological disposal, and has called for the renewed search for a site to be on a national basis.
In recent BBC interviews, Eddie Martin of Cumbria Trust and Tim Knowles (who led the previous siting process in Cumbria in 2013) both supported geological disposal of the nation’s radioactive waste, but expressed their concerns that Cumbria was the only location being assessed.
GDFWatch welcomes Cumbria Trust’s support for geological disposal and agrees with them, that any search for a site must be conducted on a national basis. Most of the country offers potentially suitable geology in which a GDF could be built. The Government have committed to conducting a national search, and we will be monitoring their approach.
But geology is not the only determining factor. Community consent is critical to identifying areas where the GDF might be built. The economic, social and environmental benefits of hosting a GDF may well prove very attractive to many parts of the UK. The direct and indirect investment associated with a GDF could underwrite many regions’ current long-term economic plans, open new opportunities, or replace EU structural funding.
But none of this is going to be achieved quickly. There are decades of planning and consideration ahead, before any final decision is required. The question now is whether communities across the UK unanimously shut down future options immediately, or whether some want to reserve their judgement and explore the risks and opportunities on a ‘no obligation/walk away at any time’ basis.
In the past week, both the Swedish and the French GDF programmes have passed important regulatory hurdles, allowing them to continue following Finland on the road to construction.
Yesterday in Sweden, the country’s Nuclear Regulator, SSM (which assesses nuclear safety and radiation risks), announced that the safety plans met legal requirements, saying:
“The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority assess that SKB has the potential to ensure the safe management and final disposal of spent nuclear fuel so that human health and the environment are protected against the harmful effects of radiation.”
On the same day, the Swedish Land and Environment Court (which assesses compliance with the country’s Environmental Code), agreed that the plans were generally robust, but wanted further work done on a long-term safety issue related to corrosion in copper canisters.
The final decision to proceed will be taken by the Swedish Government. Their decision is expected in 2019. The Government will take the regulators’ recommendations into account, alongside the opinions of the affected local communities. These communities retain the right of withdrawal. Advisory local referendum are anticipated in early March, with a formal decision by the local municipality expected by the end of March.
French regulators made a similar announcement last week on the safety plans for the French facility. Nuclear Regulator ASN said the project “as a whole” had reached a “satisfactory technical maturity”. But they sought further investigation on a range of issues, particularly related to fire safety and the storage of packages containing bituminous waste.
GDFWatch welcomes the cautious, if slow, process for examining GDF plans in great detail. The Regulators, in expressing how impressed they were with the level of detail provided, also made clear that permits and approvals will be required before every stage of construction and operation of the facility. The Swedish Land and Environment Court particularly noted that by the time the facility was due for closure (at some point in the 22nd Century), scientific knowledge will have evolved and that final approval for closure could only be made on the state of knowledge at that time. Regulators appear to accept that timescales are such that risk can only be assessed on current scientific knowledge, but that risk assessment needs to be kept under regular review throughout the lifetime of any GDF. For the moment Regulators seem satisfied risks are being managed effectively and are content to approve, with caveats. Quite rightly, they reserve the right to withhold any future regulatory approvals.
NB: A Google Translation into English of the Swedish Court’s Judgment can be found by clicking on the link. Warning: it is a machine translation, so it reads awkwardly in English, but provides some understanding of the issues as they were weighed and considered by the Environmental Court. We await an official and ‘approved’ English translation.