Radioactive Waste Disposal in the UK – the start of a new screening process.

Today I attended a meeting that marked the start of a long and complicated process – the initial geological screening for a location to dispose of the UK’s radioactive waste. Some of you may remember that this is a process that has already started once, back in 2006, but which ground to a halt last year, when the only remaining council considering volunteering, West Cumbria, pulled out of the process. Because of this, the government has decided to start the recruiting process all over again – in an attempt to improve how the site is selected. As a result a new White Paper outlining the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency’s (NDA) plans was published in July.

It states:
UK Government has published a renewed process for siting a Geological Disposal Facility. Implementing Geological Disposal outlines an approach based on working with interested communities, beginning with two years of actions overseen by Government and intended to address issues that the public and stakeholders have told us are important to them. The UK Government remains committed to geological disposal as the right policy for the long-term, safe and secure management of higher activity radioactive waste.

2014-09-30 12.06.29

Today’s meeting was held at the Geological Society in London and was proposed as the first step in establishing a dialogue with different stakeholders that would assist in creating guidelines for areas considering volunteering to be assessed about their suitability to house a deep geological storage facility (so basically it was asking people ‘who should be involved in the discussion to set up the plan to invite the public to volunteer to take part’ – it’s a REALLY early stage). It was organised by the Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) section of the NDA and featured speakers from across industry, academia and government.

During the meeting it became increasingly clear that far from being a straightforward process, this was a very complex set of stages which could be (and were) interpreted differently. Part of this is due to the complicated nature of the material we are dealing with – radioactive waste. So before I dive into the meeting, here is a quick look at radioactive waste.

Now when it comes to radioactivity, I have a bit more familiarity than many people, and interestingly it’s not because I am a geologist. Firstly, I grew up in and now live again in Devon, an area known far and wide for it’s granite. Now granite (like many igneous rocks – ok a little bit of geologist escaped there, but you don’t need to be a geo to know this) is a radioactive rock and one of the forms of radioactivity released is a gas called radon. In Devon, most people have at least heard of radon, and some people have radon detecters. The closer you live to the moors the more likely you are to have had your house tested for radon. In fact, there was a toilet in Chagford (central Devon) that became famous as the most radioactive loo in the world due to the amount of radon being so high, that if you were in there for an hour you would get more than the recommended annual national level of radon!!

The second reason that I am familiar with radiation is because I live in Plymouth and Plymouth houses the Trident submarines. The Tridents are the UK’s nuclear deterrent subs, each loaded with a nuclear weapon. Every week the dockyard tests it’s contamination alarms – sirens that echo the days of the blitz ring out across Plymouth (waking up the lazy students) – it’s a very audible reminder that a few miles away from the city centre is a fairly large concentration of high level nuclear material.

As you can see the Naval Base (on the river) isn't far from the city.

As you can see the Naval Base (on the river) isn’t far from the city (image from Wikipedia).

But what if you don’t live in a granite rich (radioactive) area or near one of the dockyards that services the nuclear submarines? Have you ever come into contact with radioactive material? Well leaving background radiation from the planet and the sun aside the answer is probably yes. In fact you have probably had a hand in creating some of your own radioactive waste. How you may ask? Well when I was told this I couldn’t believe I hadn’t realised it. A large proportion of our radioactive waste comes from……. medical facilities. Yep. Ever had an x-ray? Even a dental x-ray counts. And that is only one of the myriad ways that we use radioactive materials. And that’s not even thinking about some of the more intensive therapies – radio-therapy for example? So radioactivity isn’t unfamiliar, well, kind of, but radioactive waste and what we do with it – certainly the concept of burying it – is. Most of us (myself included) have never seen radioactive waste beyond the glowing green gunk housed in lurid yellow containers (probably leaking) as depicted in popular media from the Simpsons to Spiderman. And with that in mind, having radioactive waste anywhere nearby (with the possible addendum that you might get superpowers from it) is pretty terrifying!!

Radioactive materials in 'The Simpsons' usually glow green.

Radioactive materials in ‘The Simpsons’ usually glow green (image is from TheBrainCage with a great article about the colours of radioactive materials).

But as we may have thought that nuclear materials are restricted to dirty bombs and power stations, nuclear waste has been similarly misrepresented in the media. Although some radioactive rocks are bright yellow, a glowing rock doesn’t mean it’s radioactive. And though radioactive waste can be stored in cannisters, I can’t find any examples of it being a thick sludgy material. In fact the really radioactive waste we produce as a society often looks like this:


Image from the Guardian website

The really radioactive stuff may be the most dangerous, but it also takes up the smallest proportion of radioactive waste in the UK. But what do the different types of radioactive waste mean? Well, here is a quick summary. There are three main types of radioactive waste, and they are divided by their intensity. These three types are high-level, mid-level and low-level and they are categorised in the following way (description provided by Richard Shaw from the BGS, also available here).

Low-level waste (LLW) comes from hospitals and industry, as well as from nuclear fuel. It includes paper, rags, tools and clothing, which contain small amounts of mostly short-lived radioactivity. It does not require shielding during handling and transport, and is suitable for shallow land burial. To reduce its volume, it is often compacted before disposal. 82.67 % of the volume of waste produced in the UK is low-level but it accounts for 0.0003% of the radioactivity of all radioactive waste.

Intermediate-level waste (ILW) contains higher amounts of radioactivity and some requires shielding like protective clothing between stored waste and humans. It typically includes chemical mixes and metal fuel cladding, as well as contaminated materials from reactor decommissioning. Smaller items and non-solids may be solidified into vitreous waste (like glass). In the UK it makes up 17.26% of the volume and has 5.8% of the radioactivity of all radioactive waste.

High-level waste (HLW) is generated from the ‘burning’ of uranium fuel in a nuclear reactor, is the most radioactive waste produced and can be long or short lived. HLW contains products generated in the reactor core. It is highly radioactive and hot, so requires cooling and shielding. HLW accounts for over 94.2% of the total radioactivity produced industrially, but only approximately 0.07% of the volume of radioactive waste produced in the UK.

So we have this waste, that doesn’t look like we thought is would and comes from places we hadn’t expected, so why are we only hearing about it now? Because at the moment we are storing our waste on the surface, in secure buildings. One of the things raised in today’s meeting was the idea of keeping the radwaste ‘safe’ but this plays into my questions about why are we thinking about radwaste now – ‘safe’ from what? Are we worried about keeping ourselves safe from the radiation, or the radwaste safe from us? It seems to be a mix of the two. Firstly, despite our proximity to a myriad of sources of low level background radiation, from the sun, to the rocks to your friendly neighbourhood x-ray technician, radiation in high doses, for prolonged periods of time is dangerous. It impacts not only us and our health, but the environment too. As such we protect ourselves from it. But lets be honest, all those movie stories with runaway trains that just happen to be strapped with a dirty bomb don’t come from pure fantasy. There are utter lunatics in the world who think it’s a good idea to create a weapon from something so devastating that it could wipe out all life in a 100mile radius. We are a violent species. And as much as I hate to think it, the chances of another war happening in the future are not remote. If that happens, is it a good idea to have a supply of radioactive material just lying around?! So the radwaste also needs protecting from us.

Thinking about burying the radwaste keeps it ‘safe’, from both perspectives and in that respect I think most people (in the abstract at least) would agree that burying radioactive waste is a good idea. But as we come back to this concept of burying the waste, we start to encounter one of the problems that I saw in the meeting today. It is at this point that nuclear scientists and geologists start to move into an extremely technical discussion of ‘data’, ‘risk’ and ‘factors’, and non-scientists seem to be regarded as receptacles for this data. As such they are subject to the opinion, that once they read the statistics, they will accept or reject the data logically. The problem with this, as we all know, is that most people factor in other things beyond percentages and technical data when making a decision, and most of the scientists in the meeting today know that – they just seem to forget it when planning a big, technically complicated venture like this. The discussions today frequently descended into debates over small technical questions, with no consideration as to whether these levels of detail would even matter to the people who will read the call for volunteers or submit their area as a possible location to store radwaste. It wasn’t until someone actually asked the question “but how much of this is actually relevant to this stage of the process?” that most people sat back and went, ‘well, it’s not’.

How much technical data is necessary at this point in the process?

How much technical data is necessary at this point in the process?

To me this reflects one of the biggest problems with communicating any science, but geoscience in particular. It is all too easy as a technical expert, to get swept up in the intricacies and interest of the data and the challenges it provides and you loose sight of the perspective of anyone who isn’t an expert. More and more often in technical conferences now, geoscientists are told ‘you need to have a communications person embedded in any endeavour from the start to aid in effective communication’, but I think this person also needs to provide another purpose. They need to be a fuse for the experts in the room and halt the discussions any time they get too carried away. Planning in geology is essential and considering the next step is vital for successful projects, but not if it comes at the expense of the first stage, where gaining the engagement of your resident population is at stake.

This is ESPECIALLY important in an area where the topic at hand is controversial or perceived to be threatening. In cases like this ensuring the public enter the discussion with you at all depends on a delicate balance of trust and transparency, and by thinking five steps ahead and providing irrelevant (at the time) data, you can undermine yourself in terms of how a non-expert feels about your project. Anyone who has ever been buried by a mountain of information related to a decision that they are not an expert in can tell that this can make you feel uncertain and unconfident in your decision, and lead you to either seek an opinion from another (who may not be any more technically knowledgeable than you) or just adopt the more familiar choice. In that case heuristics wins over data, even if that isn’t actually the best thing.

So in respect to the plan to request potential participants to submit their area for further examinations as to whether they are even suitable for radioactive dispoasal, I’ll be watching carefully to see just how complex the communications get, and how relevant they stay.

Voice of the Future 2014

Last week on Wednesday the 19th March, I got the chance to attend an event called ‘Voice of the Future’ that allows early-career researchers and students to ask questions about science policy directly to the politicians who make the decisions. This event happens every year as a part of National Science and Engineering Week and draws student representatives of some of the largest scientific societies in Britain. I was asked to be a representative for the Geological Society, and I couldn’t have been more excited! Especially as it seems like so much happens behind closed doors that the ‘air of mystery’ is more of a fog…!

Representing the Geological Society

Representing the Geological Society

All those who attended had the opportunity to ask a question of the ‘witnesses’ (who would normally have been scientists, economists, etc; but this time were the politicians) and although there were far too many questions submitted than could possibly be asked, most of us at least got a chance to sit at the round table, just like in a real select committee meeting. One of the funny things was that you could be assigned a question asked by someone else, which was a little confusing, especially as you then didn’t necessarily know the background to the question. The questions ranged from public perceptions of scientists, to government funding, to evidence based policy making, and were split into four sessions, each with different witnesses.

Set up just like a real Select Committee Meeting.

Set up just like a real Select Committee Meeting.

The meeting was chaired by Victoria Charlton, from the Select Committee for Science and Technology and the meeting was opened by the Speaker of the House of Commons: John Bercow. Mr Bercow started the meeting by welcoming all the participants, but saying that he had had no interest in science at school – that it frightened him. I’m always saddened when I hear of a subject frightening a person – when knowledge and curiosity are something that is scary; I feel that’s when something has gone really wrong in that person’s educational experience. However, he moved on to say that he now thinks science is an important part of a rounded education (which is true!). He also moved on to describe the two types of politician according to the late Tony Benn; signposts (who have a fixed opinion and never change it) and weathercocks (who have no opinion at all). I was a bit concerned that these were described as the only types of politician as I would much rather have a politician with an opinion, but who was willing to change it in the face of good evidence, but maybe that’s just me!

Sir Mark Walport

Sir Mark Walport

We were then introduced to the first session of the day, with our witness Sir Mark Walport, the current Government Chief Scientific Advisor. Sir Mark answered questions on medical technology,, gender equality in science, the UK’s role in the international scientific community, evidence based policy and how to become Chief Science Advisor. The first question he was asked was about how to tackle the current negative perception of science and scientists, which he answered with my favourite quote of the day:

“You talk about the public understanding of science, but it’s equally important that scientists understand the public as well and so I think we are in a world where we need a public engagement actually – it’s about a two way conversation between the scientific community and all the publics.”

He then proceeded to refer to the recently published Public Attitudes to Science (PAS) survey which highlighted that actually the public don’t seem to perceive science and scientists negatively at all – quite the opposite in fact! This kind of question was repeated in the second session as well, which led me to think firstly that maybe scientists have a defensive view of how we are perceived by the public and also possibly that not many of the question askers were aware of the PAS study (either the most recent one, or any of its previous versions) as this seemed an unusual point to be labouring.
Another question Sir Mark was asked was:

“Do you think the media is dangerously irresponsible in the way that it reports on scientific topics?”

His answer to this was really interesting in my opinion, as he said that perhaps it wasn’t that the media was dangerously irresponsible, but more ‘dangerously variable’. That we can’t think of the media as a single element, and that some reporters work hard and are very effective. He also noted that it ‘takes two to tango’ that scientists must not ‘over claim’ and beware of their data being sensationalised.

The Science and Technology Select Committee

The Science and Technology Select Committee

The second session was with members of the Science and Technology Committee; Andrew Miller, Pamela Nash, David Tredinnick, David Heath, Stephen Metcalfe, Sarah Newton and Jim Dowd. This was very interesting as the panel format gave rise to more of a debate between witnesses and also created my second favourite quote of the day. In response to the question:

“How important is it that the general public understand the true value of the medicines that they take and have the opportunity to have a say on this?”

David Tredinnick brought up the subject of homeopathic medicine in response to this question, but I couldn’t help but think that this was TOTALLY the wrong crowd for that. I mean you are speaking to a room full of early careers researchers, who in many cases have had to fight and claw for the little funding they have managed to secure and they are researchers representing the Society of Biology, the Biochemical Society, the Society for Applied Microbiology, the British Pharmacological Society, the Society for Endocrinology, the Campaign for Science and Engineering – and the rest who may not have been medical researchers, but still tend toward the skeptical end of the spectrum!! Still David Heath stepped in with the brilliant reply:

“I feel like I’m being drawn into an argument I don’t want to have, I just prefer evidence rather than… magic.”

You could tell that his response went down well in the room! Other questions asked in this session related to the Haldane principle, the science curriculum, nuclear reactors, access to scientific information, what researchers can do to become more engaged with Parliament, GM crops and evidence based policy. The panel were also asked:

“What single major scientific discovery would you hope to see in your lifetime?”

The answers were varied and interesting, from room temperature superconductivity, issues around resistance to antibiotics and deep space exploration. David Tredinnick suggested electricity transmitted ‘through the ether’, and whilst David Heath initially plugged for supermarket packaging that you could actually open, he actually wanted to see medical tri-corders invented (extra points for the Star Trek reference). Stephen Metcalfe wanted a better understanding of the origins of disease and Andrew Miller finished with a big picture wish – to better learn how to manage the limited resources of our planet.

Jim Dowd wants room temperature superconductivity developed.

Jim Dowd wants room temperature superconductivity developed.

The witness for the third panel was Liam Byrne, the Shadow Minister for Business, Innovation and Skills. He answered questions on life science investment, evidence based policy, Scotland’s potential independence, MP’s access to scientific advice and retention of young scientists and engineers. He also answered the question:

“If the Government’s ambition to obtain highly skilled professionals from all backgrounds was real, would the first step not be to extend student loan funding to Masters level students, enabling a greater number of students to undertake professional postgraduate study?”

Mr Byrnes answer was yes, as he understood now that in some fields in order to distinguish yourself you need to have postgraduate study, and that we cannot leave our workforce’s career development in the hands of the large banking corporations.

David Willetts MP

David Willetts MP

The fourth session was attended by David Willetts, the Minister for Universities and Science – who was late. When he did arrive, he was quite short with his answers (and I understand that it was Budget Day, but a) I think that applied to everyone else as well and b) if he was too busy he should have just said no), but answered on the topics of science teachers, the focus of funding research, the privatisation of NERC research centres, encouraging diversity, development of space technology, immigration and the skilled researcher brain drain.
The meeting was concluded by Andrew Miller saying that whilst the meeting was a good start, it was incumbent upon us to keep in contact – tell our MP’s about our research, send in evidence for consideration and to keep talking about policy that we value.

“We need your help” he said, and of course, he is right.


So I know this was a long post, but I think it was worth it. The photographs were used by kind permission of the Society of Biology (contact Dr Rebecca Nesbit) and if you want to see the meeting, the video of the session is avalible here.