Members of CoRWM – Derek Lacey (Vice Chair), Ray Kemp (Chair of Sub-Group3) and Simon Webb (Member) – visited 2 sites of Nuclear Transport Solutions, the NDA subsidiary on 2 to 3 October 2024.
This was part of a more general stock-take on the preparations for transporting wastes to a Geological Disposal Facility. The National Policy Statement approved by Parliament in 2019 indicates a preference for rail or waterborne movement of waste from existing nuclear sites to a GDF. The Committee wanted to be assured that the state of planning and capability for these modes of transport broadly matches other parts of the programme, such as site selection.
At Barrow Port we were briefed on the UK national capability for seaborne transport, which is centred on 3 specially designed ships (originally purchased to collect spent fuels and return highly active wastes in support of reprocessing operations at Sellafield).
The overall capability was impressive, well used to dealing with demanding and technically knowledgeable regular customers such as Japan and Germany, and occasionally the United States – all of whom had returned to NTS for further demanding delivery tasks.
There was an integrated relationship with security staffs including the Civil Nuclear Constabulary who provide an armed capability afloat. The Captain of MV Pacific Heron gave us an impressive briefing across the whole range of ship safety and security issues, based on decades of experience on transporting nuclear materials and wastes to and from Japan.
The design of the second generation of ships had benefitted from an earlier generation on the same run. It offered a good deal of flexibility to manage a range of different types of nuclear waste containers, supported by craneage at the port to move them to and from an adjacent rail head and hence onto the national network. There had been no repeat of the 2011 derailment of some returning empty flasks at Barrow rail junction, with lessons learned by Network Rail too. It was encouraging to see carbon-reducing innovation, with Sail technology being trialled on a ship, which aims to improve fuel efficiency for long sea journeys.
The whole operation was plainly “ship-shape and Barrow fashion”.
The main question that the visit left CoRWM was how this maritime option was being handled in the assessment of suitable sites for a GDF. There could well be advantages in the seaborne option for some fuels and waste products, but clearly much will depend on how close the preferred geology was to an existing port capable of taking in and unloading securely (in the way for example that Scrabster port in Scotland helped manage movement of “Exotic” materials from Dounreay in 2016 to 2018).
We would encourage an open mind being taken to this possibility involving ports routinely in consultations where a waterborne option looks plausible.
We next visited the NTS rail depot North of Carlisle. They too have a long and almost entirely accident-free history of moving wastes since the 1950s. We were impressed by the close integration with both Network Rail and the security authorities over the movement of specialist containers by rail. Their efficiency and capability had allowed them to win work from a leading grocery company as well as specialist high-value/ security shippers. The move to modern 88 class electric and diesel locomotives had, amongst economic advantages, given drivers much better visibility of the railway ahead which had safety and security benefits. It was good to see that skills and local links were being maintained by local apprentice intake, both female and male. The only surprise was to learn that in some instances fluctuations in electricity prices on the rail network has required NTS, in consultations with its customers, to revert to diesel traction on some of its services – an issue that DfT and Network Rail are more than aware of.
Again, we would encourage NTS to look forwards at the rail options that might accompany a GDF given the policy preference; and how to present it both in potential hosting communities and those which would see rail traffic to which they were accustomed in the Magnox era resuming. Some track work might be needed in places en route but distant from Sellafield and the GDF. It would be a setback for the overall programme if opposition sprung up as has happened near PWR sites because of late or insufficient public presentation and consultation (for example over track / tunnel widening).
Looking ahead a new Transport Container Design – suitable for a range of current and future nuclear packages was under development. It appears to be suitable for all routes out of and into Sellafield. CoRWM members used these rail routes between the 2 sites on this visit, and this showed that current lines’ capacity is sufficient, with no firm plans as yet for other major infrastructure on the same route, but has vulnerabilities to climate change / coastal erosion effects.
With these few remarks, however, the CoRWM team would like to thank NTS for a useful visit and commend the skill and dedication of staff in the traditions of Great British shipping and railways. Overall, the visit showed that the transport risk to nuclear waste appears very low – but will be kept under regular review by CoRWM.
