RWMAC's Advice to Ministers on the Radioactive Waste Implications of Reprocessing

FOREWORD

The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC) is the independent body that advises UK Government, including the devolved administrations for Scotland and Wales, on issues relating to the management of civil radioactive waste. This document reports the Committee’s 1999-2000 review of the waste implications of reprocessing.

Highly radioactive "spent" nuclear fuel is removed from a reactor after use. In the UK this fuel can come from three types of nuclear reactor used to generate electric power: Magnox reactors, Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactors (AGRs) and the Sizewell B Light Water Reactor (LWR). Two broad management strategies are available to deal with this spent fuel in the short to medium term. It may either be stored in such a way that it does not deteriorate significantly or, after a period of cooling, it may be dissolved in acid and potentially re-usable uranium and plutonium contained within it chemically separated out. The latter is termed reprocessing.

Uranium and plutonium separated from spent fuel by reprocessing can (and successfully have been) used again in nuclear power stations. They may therefore be seen to have "value" in terms of the large amounts of nuclear power that they can potentially generate. But this must be set against the cost of the reprocessing itself. In addition, reprocessing produces a range of wastes the most notable of which is liquid high level, heat generating waste which, again after cooling, is converted to chemically stable, although highly radioactive, glass. Like the process of nuclear power generation itself, reprocessing also gives rise to intermediate and low level solid radioactive wastes and liquid and gaseous radioactive discharges that must be managed. For all these reasons, the economics and benefits of reprocessing are currently the subject of lively debate.

The review of reprocessing that is reported here has focussed on BNFL’s activities at Sellafield, the only UK location where reprocessing is carried out at the present time. Both the reprocessing of Magnox spent nuclear fuel in the B205 facility and the reprocessing of AGR and LWR spent nuclear fuel in the THORP facility have been considered. The latter, in particular, also undertakes reprocessing of overseas spent nuclear fuel.

The review has evaluated and assessed the management implications of the waste and other material arisings that follow from a range of nuclear power plant and reprocessing operational scenarios. These were chosen to span early termination of UK reprocessing through to the maximum possible extent of future reprocessing that BNFL could reasonably foresee. RWMAC notes that the early closure of Magnox reprocessing could also necessitate early closure of the Magnox power stations. The wider consequences and environmental implications of replacing these power sources was not evaluated by the Committee.

Inevitably, most of the factual data were supplied by BNFL. The Committee undertook such checks on consistency and accuracy as it could, recognising that a fully independent analysis was not possible. Prior to finalisation of the report, BNFL were asked to vouch for the factual accuracy of the content. I believe that this process has led to new information being put into the public domain, for which the company should be thanked. RWMAC continues to believe that future radioactive waste management policy must be based on full and open disclosure of all the relevant facts. The Committee hopes that its analysis will provide useful background to inform debate of the controversial reprocessing issue as part of the Government’s forthcoming radioactive waste management policy review.

Professor Charles Curtis

Chairman of RWMAC