‘Holderness nuclear waste site seems ludicrous’ – expert warns of ‘significant’ risks

Dr Paul Dorfman is astonished that a Geological Disposal Facility is being considered for South Holderness

By Joseph Gerrard, Local Democracy Reporter 12 Feb 24

An expert has warned against proposals to build an underground radioactive nuclear waste site under Holderness.

Dr Paul Dorfman, an academic and former government adviser, told LDRS he was astonished that a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) had been proposed for south Holderness. The researcher, who specialises in nuclear waste management, said the risks included flooding and rising sea levels. He also claimed that GDFs were decades away from being proven as a concept………………………………

Under the proposals, radioactive waste would be put into containers and stored hundreds of metres underground at a site which would operate for 175 years. The network of underground vaults and tunnels built within natural geological formations would then be back-filled and the surface site would be given over to other uses.

The establishment of the South Holderness Working Group, which includes East Riding Council, could see funding of up to £2.5m granted if the proposals progress. A facility would only be built if the majority of people in the affected area were shown to want it through a “Test of Support” – though the form that this would take has yet to be decided.

Since the announcement, opposition has been growing to the proposals including with the formation of a local GDF Action Group vowed to oppose it. Beverley and Holderness MP Graham Stuart has also backed a call from South East Holderness councillors Lyn Healing and Sean McMaster for the council to withdraw from the project.

‘Significant risks’

Dr Dorfman is a fellow of the University of Sussex’s Science Policy Research Unit and chairs the Greenpeace-backed Nuclear Consulting Group. His work has included advising the Government, including the Ministry of Defence, on nuclear waste management

Dr Dorfman said the proposals threw up problem after problem and the case for a GDF in south Holderness was knocked out of court when stacked against the evidence. The academic said: “There’s lots of discussions around nuclear energy, but that’s beside the point in this case, it’s about the site itself.

“This is an appalling site, it seems ludicrous, the area seems to have a socially disadvantaged community, and all that implies for why this location has been chosen. There’s lots of models, including the Environment Agency’s, which show this area is at risk of flooding.

“That’s because of sea levels and future sea level rises, there’s some uncertainty over how that will play out. But what there isn’t uncertainty over is the risk of storm surges.

“Over the next 50 to 100 years the issue is sea level rise, but in the nearer term it’s storm surge risk. So why on earth are they looking at this location?

“The other issue is that GDFs are largely conceptual. Yes, one’s been constructed in Sweden, but it’s still an ongoing experiment due to sets of ongoing questions around the containment, the backfill, and most importantly whether the highly radioactive waste can be securely isolated from the wider environment for tens of thousands of years.

“What would happen if there is an accident or incident at a GDF? Significant key underlying research hasn’t been completed, so the question remains, how you can start something like this before you know what you’re doing?

“The current European consensus supports the GDF concept. We have this shared problem of nuclear waste, and we must find a way of managing this extraordinarily toxic stuff. France has also been trying to build a GDF, but they’ve also had significant problems with community acceptance.

“It’s all very well saying let’s do this, but what if deep emplacement makes matters worse? The UK has an existential nuclear waste burden. What are we going to do with it? Well, at the end of the day, no one really knows.

“There may be no final solution, we may have to store it. With a GDF, there’s a huge amount of uncertainty around the underlying geology, would it remain stable for millennia? Then there’s a security issue. Once a GDF is operational, there’s still going to be an opening somewhere.

“And there’s going to be years of trying to emplace this highly radioactive stuff under the ground in containers. It has to be restated that high and mid-level radioactive waste is hugely toxic, and once emplaced, if something goes wrong, then we have a whole set of new problems.

“So, you’ve got problem after problem, and then on top of that you’ve got the issue in south Holderness of the significant risk of flooding. At that point we should just say forget it. This raises the question as to why this site was selected and all that implies for those who have been doing the site selection.

“As for me, I’m astonished the site is being considered. Clearly there will have been preliminary discussions on planning gain for the wider area, with the investment and jobs it would create.

“At a time when money is tight for local people and the local authority, any new money would be welcome. There’s always an upside to any new development, but this has to be weighed against the downside, which in this case is building a high-level nuclear waste site in an area of flooding risk, and the potential hazard to the local community over generations.

“I can’t put into words how amazed I am by this choice of location. As if there weren’t enough problems with a GDF already, south Holderness is a deeply problematic location.”……………………………………………………………………………… https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/holderness-nuclear-waste-site-seems-9090538

February 14, 2024 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | UK, wastes