Geological Disposal Facility Design

CIVE5707M: Integrated design project IV
Stakeholder: National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL)
Client: Professor P. Purnell
University Of Leeds, School of Civil Engineering Session 2012/2013


Group 12:
Alexander Carr
Ben Fadida
James Kingman
Honor Newman
Romain Sidoti
Joshua Wood
II
ABSTRACT
To cope with our legacy and future nuclear waste production within the United Kingdom, a solution
was required to facilitate the disposal of the nuclear waste. Geological disposal has been selected, by
the UK government, as the preferred option for the long-term management of nuclear waste. Sizewell
was selected as the most appropriate location to situate a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF).
Detailed designs for the surface and subterranean facilities were developed, based on the NDA
specifications, and the identified site. Transport of existing nuclear waste, by sea, directly from
Sellafield to Sizewell was identified as the most appropriate method of transport.
The GDF facility will remain operational until 2222, after which the facility will be backfilled, and
the site redeveloped to ensure future safety. A combination of stewardship and archives, along with
durable markers, have been proposed to ensure that knowledge of the dangers of the site are
maintained over the many tens of thousands of years that the waste will remain radioactive.

III
Table of Contents
1. Pre-Qualification Exercise: Preliminary assessment of proposed sites ......... 1
1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 1
1.2 West Cumbria ........................................................................................... 1
1.2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.2.2 Transport links ................................................................................................................. 1
1.2.3 Natural capital of the area ................................................................................................ 1
1.2.4 Community opposition ..................................................................................................... 2
1.2.5 Topography ...................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.6 Geology ............................................................................................................................ 3
1.2.6.1 Carboniferous rocks ............................................................................................................ 3
1.2.6.2 Permian, Jurassic and Triassic rocks .................................................................................... 3
1.2.6.3 Ordovician rocks .................................................................................................................. 3
1.2.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 4
1.3 Romney Marsh, Kent ................................................................................. 4
1.3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4
1.3.2 Level of Experience within Nuclear Industry and Employment Benefits .............................. 4
1.3.3 Transport Links ................................................................................................................. 4
1.3.4 Natural Capital of the Area ............................................................................................... 4
1.3.5 Community Opposition ..................................................................................................... 5
1.3.6 Geology ............................................................................................................................ 5
1.3.6.1 Sub-surface Unsuitability Test ............................................................................................. 5
1.3.6.2 Topography, Geomorphology and Flood Risk ..................................................................... 6
1.4 Selection of alternative site for geological disposal facility ........................ 7
1.5 Sizewell ..................................................................................................... 7
1.5.1 Community opposition ..................................................................................................... 8
1.5.2 Earthquake and fault zones ............................................................................................... 8
1.5.3 Topography ...................................................................................................................... 9
1.5.4 Flooding ........................................................................................................................... 9
1.5.5 Transport ......................................................................................................................... 9
1.5.6 Geology ............................................................................................................................ 9
1.6 Decision Making Procedure ..................................................................... 10
1.6.1 Weightings ..................................................................................................................... 10
1.6.2 Uncertainty .................................................................................................................... 11
1.6.3 Weighted Average Multipliers ........................................................................................ 11
1.7 Decision Matrix ....................................................................................... 12
1.8 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 13
2. Pre-Qualification exercise: Design Development ....................................... 14
IV
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 14
2.2 Waste Quantities for Disposal ................................................................. 14
2.2.1 Data Sources .................................................................................................................. 14
2.2.1.1 The 2010 UK Radioactive Waste Inventory (UKRWI) ........................................................ 14
2.2.1.2 The 2010 Estimate of Waste for Geological Disposal (EWGD) .......................................... 14
2.2.1.3 Nirex Report N/085 ........................................................................................................... 15
2.2.2 Assumptions................................................................................................................... 15
2.2.2.1 Nuclear New Build Program .............................................................................................. 15
2.2.2.2 Spent Fuel, Uranium and Plutonium ................................................................................. 15
2.2.2.3 Waste Quantity Conversions ............................................................................................. 15
2.2.3 Waste Quantities for Design ........................................................................................... 16
2.2.4 Waste Locations for Design ............................................................................................. 16
2.3 Transportation of Waste to Site .............................................................. 17
2.3.1 Modes of Transport ........................................................................................................ 17
2.3.1.1 Transport by Sea ............................................................................................................... 17
2.3.1.2 Transport by Rail ............................................................................................................... 17
2.3.1.3 Transport by Road ............................................................................................................. 17
2.3.2 Options for Transport ..................................................................................................... 17
2.3.2.1 Option 1 ............................................................................................................................. 18
2.3.2.2 Option 2 ............................................................................................................................. 18
2.3.2.3 Option 3 ............................................................................................................................. 18
2.3.2.4 Option 4 ............................................................................................................................. 18
2.3.2.5 Option 5 ............................................................................................................................. 18
2.3.2.6 Transport Option Preference Hierarchy ............................................................................ 18
2.3.3 Selection of Modes of Transport for Existing Sites ........................................................... 18
2.3.4 Logistics and Delivery Rates ............................................................................................ 19
2.3.4.1 Transport Vessels .............................................................................................................. 19
2.3.4.2 Accident Rates and Risk Assessment ................................................................................ 20
2.3.4.3 Summary of Logistics ......................................................................................................... 20
2.4 Design specification: Development of the brief ....................................... 21
2.4.1 Surface Facilities ............................................................................................................. 21
2.4.2 Underground Operational Requirements ........................................................................ 22
2.4.3 Waste Transport and Infrastructure Requirements .......................................................... 22
2.4.4 Safety ............................................................................................................................. 22
2.4.5 Sustainability and environmental impacts ....................................................................... 23
2.5 Preliminary Design of Proposed Sites in Sizewell ..................................... 23
2.5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 23
2.5.2 Location of Sites ............................................................................................................. 24
2.5.3 Constraints and Opportunities ........................................................................................ 25
2.5.3.1 Site 1 .................................................................................................................................. 25
2.5.3.2 Site 2 .................................................................................................................................. 25
2.5.4 Conceptual layouts for Surface Facilities .......................................................................... 26
V
2.5.4.1 Surface Facilities layouts ................................................................................................... 26
2.5.4.2 Decision Matrix ................................................................................................................. 28
2.5.5 Conceptual layouts for Underground Facilities................................................................. 29
2.5.5.1 Decision Matrix ................................................................................................................. 29
2.6 Emplacement Process ............................................................................. 30
2.6.1 Surface Handling Processes ............................................................................................. 30
2.6.1.1 Sea ..................................................................................................................................... 30
2.6.1.2 Unloading .......................................................................................................................... 30
2.6.1.3 Site check in ....................................................................................................................... 30
2.6.1.4 Waste Package Transfer Facility ........................................................................................ 30
2.6.1.5 Drift Tunnel ....................................................................................................................... 30
2.6.2 Surface Facility Process Flow Chart .................................................................................. 31
2.6.3 Underground Handling Processes (Nuclear Decomissioning Authority, 2010) ................... 32
2.7 Detailed design ....................................................................................... 33
2.7.1 Surface Facility ............................................................................................................... 33
2.7.1.1 Operational Site Layout ..................................................................................................... 33
2.7.1.2 Construction Phase Site Layout ......................................................................................... 35
2.7.1.3 Waste Reception and Handling Facilities .......................................................................... 35
2.7.1.4 Port .................................................................................................................................... 35
2.7.2 Underground Facilities .................................................................................................... 36
2.7.2.1 Underground Facility detailed design ............................................................................... 36
2.7.3 Construction of the Underground Facilities and Backfilling .............................................. 38
2.7.3.1 Excavation methods .......................................................................................................... 38
2.7.3.2 Construction Process ......................................................................................................... 38
2.7.3.3 Backfilling .......................................................................................................................... 38
2.7.3.4 Spoil Management ............................................................................................................ 39
2.8 Method Statement .................................................................................. 40
2.9 Risk Assessment ...................................................................................... 41
3. Prequalification Exercise: Post-Closure ..................................................... 42
3.1 Post Closure Management ...................................................................... 42
3.2 Near Term Post Closure ........................................................................... 42
3.2.1 Considered Near Term Post Closure Uses ........................................................................ 42
3.2.2 Recommended Near Term Post Closure Use .................................................................... 44
3.3 Long Term Post Closure Management Approaches .................................. 44
3.3.1 Passive Institutional Control ........................................................................................... 44
3.3.2 Active Institutional Control ............................................................................................. 44
3.3.3 Total Abandonment ........................................................................................................ 44
3.3.4 The Communities Legacy ................................................................................................ 44
3.3.5 Adopted Approaches ...................................................................................................... 45
3.3.6 Adopted Passive Institutional Controls ........................................................................... 45
VI
3.3.7 – Adopted Active Institutional Controls ........................................................................... 46
3.4 Backfilling ............................................................................................... 46
3.4.1 Public Opinion ................................................................................................................ 46
3.4.2 Ethics ............................................................................................................................. 46
3.4.3 Costs .............................................................................................................................. 46
3.4.4 Safety and Safeguards .................................................................................................... 47
3.5 Project Timeline ...................................................................................... 47
Appendix A ................................................................................................... 48
Appendix B ................................................................................................... 49
Appendix C ................................................................................................... 50
Appendix D ................................................................................................... 51
Appendix E .................................................................................................... 52
Appendix F .................................................................................................... 53
Appendix G ................................................................................................... 56
Appendix H ................................................................................................... 58
Appendix I .................................................................................................... 61
Appendix J .................................................................................................... 64
Appendix K ................................................................................................... 65
Appendix L .................................................................................................... 67
Appendix M .................................................................................................. 70
Appendix N ................................................................................................... 74
Appendix O ................................................................................................... 79
Appendix P ................................................................................................... 93
Appendix Q ................................................................................................... 96
Appendix – Project Implementation Plan .................................................... 100
Appendix- Meeting Minutes ....................................................................... 104
Appendix – Full Brief ................................................................................... 122
Works Cited ................................................................................................ 130
VII
Table of Figures

Figure 1: West Cumbria Topography .........................................................................................2
Figure 2: Water Flow in Cumbria ..............................................................................................3
Figure 3: Historic Coastline Contours ........................................................................................7
Figure 4: Earthquake history in the UK......................................................................................8
Figure 5: Geological Fault zones in the UK ................................................................................8
Figure 6: Map of Sizewell .........................................................................................................24
Figure 7: Sizewell site 1 area ....................................................................................................26
Figure 8: Sizewell site 2 area ....................................................................................................26
Figure 9: Surface facilities conceptual design .........................................................................27
Figure 10: Process flow chart ...................................................................................................31
Figure 11: Operational Site layout ...........................................................................................34
Figure 12: Underground facility detailed design .....................................................................37
Figure 13: Marker stone sketch ...............................................................................................45
Figure 14: Visitor center sketch ...............................................................................................45
Figure 15: Project Timeline ......................................................................................................47

1
1. Pre-Qualification Exercise: Preliminary
assessment of proposed sites

1.1 Introduction
The Government has undertaken a search for possible geological disposal facility sites on a purely
voluntary basis, stating that “a repository will only be put somewhere where the geology is suitable
and there is a community that has volunteered to have it” (West Cumbria Managing Radioactive
Waste Safely Partnership, 2012).
There are currently three local communities that have expressed interest in further exploring the
opportunity of facilitating a GDF; these comprise of Allerdale and Copeland, which are both situated
in West Cumbria, along with Romney Marsh in Kent. There is also Sizewell, in Suffolk, which,
although has not volunteered as a site, is currently being assessed for suitability.
As an incentive to encourage communities to accept the proposed geological disposal facility, the
Government is offering community benefits packages that will include substantial long-term
investment into infrastructure, services and skills that will benefit the community as a whole.
1.2 West Cumbria
1.2.1 Introduction
Allerdale is one of six districts that makes up Cumbria, and is located in the West of the county,
approximately 37km (Google Earth, 2012) away from the Sellafield site. Also situated in West
Cumbria, Copeland is just 7km (Google Earth, 2012) away from the Sellafield site.
West Cumbria has a long history of nuclear industry with the Sellafield nuclear power plant being
commissioned in 1956. (Sellafield Ltd, Unknown). The question is being raised as to whether they
should develop the area in to a local hub of excellence recognised internationally, or diversify.
1.2.2 Transport links
The presence of existing transport links is important, though not essential, when choosing the location
for the GDF. Due to the length of time the facility will be operational for, it is important to consider
several different methods of transport for each location. The mode of transport used for moving
nuclear waste could change, and the potential cost of this to the project must be considered.
Both of the potential Cumbrian locations are close to existing rail links but lack sufficient road links.
The nearest motorway (M6) is too far away from both of the sites to be used for regular transport of
waste. For either Allerdale or Copeland to be chosen as the final location, significant improvement to
the road network must take place, which would be difficult in an area with a large area of protected
land. The nearest airfield is at Carlisle Airport, approximately 90km (Google Earth, 2012) by road
from Copeland, and 45km (Google Earth, 2012) from Allerdale.
1.2.3 Natural capital of the area
The presence of protected land and sites of special scientific interest could affect the decision on any
of the potential locations. Although close to the Lake District, Eskdale, in the Copeland district, has
an only small area of scientific interest surrounding it. There are small areas marked as nature reserves,
although not in the immediate vicinity of Eskdale.
Silloth has the largest areas of special scientific areas of all the locations that are being considered,
with relatively large nature reserve areas. (Natural England, Unknown)
2
1.2.4 Community opposition
Many locals believe that the reputation of the entire area would be diminished if a GDF were to be
built in West Cumbria. Tourism brought in over £2.2 billion to the local economy in 2011 (Cumbria
Tourism, Unknown). People would be less willing to visit on holiday, and potentially wary of moving
to the locality. This would affect the tourism and property values.
With the Lake District National Park being located in Cumbria, many people are opposed to the idea
of storing such hazardous waste under one of arguably the most beautiful parts of England. Local
residents rallied together in early 2012 and sent a postcard card to the Lake District National Park
titled ‘Remembering Chernobyl’ (Radiation Free Lakeland, 2012) demonstrating the fear the public
share. There is also great uncertainty over what will be done with the spoil from the excavation of the
underground facility. There will be approximately the same amount as that from the channel tunnel
excavation (West Cumbria Managing Radioactive Waste Safely Partnership, 2012).
Some 68% of Copeland residents and 51% of Allerdale residents (World Nuclear News, 2012) are in
favour of further investigation into the possibility of a geological disposal facility. This shows that
while there is great concern over the project, local communities are still in favour of further
investigating the possibilities.
1.2.5 Topography
The technical aspects of a particular area both underground (geology) and over ground (topography)
should be considered when looking at the suitability of West Cumbria in hosting a geological disposal
facility. A Topographic relief map of West Cumbria illustrating the difference in ground elevation of
the partnership area reflects non-uniformity in the terrain.
High mountainous areas lie in the eastern part of West Cumbria in the Lake District region. These
mountainous chains continue south of Copeland but the terrain is much more subdued north of
Allerdale on the Solway lowlands and along the coast of the Irish Sea.



It is clear from the color-coding of the above relief maps that the terrain is not leveled. The
topography of the West Cumbria area should be sufficient to disregard it as an option for a geological
disposal facility because "water flow is driven by the elevation of mountains and inevitably rises to
surface as 'artesian' springs" (Smythe, 2010) as illustrated in figure 2 below.


0 m 1000 m
Figure 1- West Cumbria topography (Smythe, 2010)
3
The high mountains of the Lake District will
create a strong flow of water from East to West
towards the Irish Sea, causing safety hazards as
suitable aquifers from the Sherwood sandstone
group are present along the coast. The Sherwood
sandstone group is the main aquifer that is
exploited in the area and should not be in contact
with any nuclear waste in order to protect our
present or possible future water drinking systems.


Different relief maps of geological disposal facility sites around the world in Sweden and Finland in
Appendix A show that a low relief system was chosen as compared to West Cumbria (Smythe, 2010).
1.2.6 Geology
The geology of West Cumbria varies enormously with a mixture of carboniferous, Triassic and
Ordovician rocks. The Lake District area (Comprising North Copeland and South Allerdale) is mainly
composed of the Ordovician group of rocks that includes the Eycott and Borrowdale Volcanic groups
and the Skiddaw group. Towards the more subdued terrain of West Cumbria in the Solway lowlands
as well as along the coast from St Bees towards Haverigg, younger carboniferous and Triassic rocks
underlie these ancient rocks and thicken towards the Irish Sea and Solway lowlands (British
Geological Survey, 2010).
1.2.6.1 Carboniferous rocks
The Carboniferous Pennine Coal Measures Group is present north of Allerdale from Workington
along the coast towards Carlisle. It is part of the exclusion area because "although coal seams to from
a small part of the total thickness of the group, typically less than 10%, their presence has made this
group of primary economic importance” (British Geological Survey, 2010).
1.2.6.2 Permian, Jurassic and Triassic rocks
The Sherwood Sandstone group is present in different formations around West Cumbria: Ormskirk
Sandstone formation, Calder Sandstone formation and St Bees Sandstone formation. The Sherwood
Sandstone group is the primary aquifer in the area and needs particular attention to ensure no radiation
will contaminate potential exploitable groundwater resources that are currently exploited or could be
exploited in the future (British Geological Survey, 2010).
The sandstone formation is also "the main reservoir for oil and gas in the Irish Sea" (Jackson et al.,
1995) and has the greatest potential for these resources so this needs to be part of the exclusion area.
1.2.6.3 Ordovician rocks
The Ordovician Skiddaw group are predominant in the northern part of the Lake District and are
suitable for hosting a geological disposal facility as they consist of clayey material of low
permeability, a material already used in other geological disposal facilities such as in Sweden and
Finland. However this Skiddaw group sits below the Lake District National park region, which is a
natural domain that needs to be preserved.
The Borrowdale and Eycott Volcanic group which are also of Ordovician age consist of Andesitic
lavas and sills and pyroclastic and volcaniclastic rocks (British Geological Survey, 2010). These lie
more predominantly in the central core region of the Lake District. The rock could be suitable for a
geological disposal facility as “pyroclastic deposits have porosity and permeability characteristics like
those of poorly sorted sediments; however, the pyroclastic material might become welded and almost
impermeable.” (United States Geological Survey, Unknown)
Waste
Water
flow
West East
Figure 2- Water flow in Cumbria (Smythe, 2010)
4
1.2.7 Conclusion
The high potential of exploitable natural resources (coal, oil and gas, aquifers and iron ore) imposes
constraints on the location of a possible underground facility in the partnership area. An exclusion
area has been developed from information provided by the British Geological Survey memoirs in
order to protect these potential beneficial natural resources from contamination by nuclear waste.

The Exclusion area map present in Appendix B illustrates the different natural resources present in
Cumbria that need to be protected. The Sherwood Sandstone Group main aquifer, The Pennine coal
measures group and oil and gas activities are present. (British Geological Survey, 2010)
The large area of the National park in green only leaves a small portion of West Cumbria out of the
Exclusion area. The National park needs to be preserved of its landscape and so construction within
the park is not an option, knowing the Lake District national park attracts “millions of visitors to the
area every year” (West Cumbria Managing Radioactive Waste Safely Partnership, 2012).
So even though the Lake District National park area is the only region that has suitable geology (from
section 1.3.2 and 1.3.3), the natural aspect of the area protects it and the topography is not suitable.
The mountainous relief terrain of the region around the Lake District makes it even harder to consider
building a surface facility.

1.3 Romney Marsh, Kent
1.3.1 Introduction
Romney Marsh is situated in the South East of England, approximately 13 km (DigiMap, 2012) from
the existing Dungeness power stations.
1.3.2 Level of Experience within Nuclear Industry and Employment Benefits
In Romney Marsh, the presence of Dungeness power stations A and B means there is also local
expertise in area with regards to the nuclear industry. The Dungeness power stations have created a
large amount of jobs for the local population, accounting for “8% of the all employment in the
Romney Marsh Area”. (BBC News, 2012). Dungeness power station B is due to fully close in 2017
and Dungeness power station A to close in 2018 or 2023 if granted an extension. (BBC News, 2012).
The closure of this power station in the near future will increase unemployment in the region. It is
therefore possible that should Romney Marsh be approved as a location, some of the job losses that
would come about from the closure of the power stations could potentially be offset.
1.3.3 Transport Links
Romney Marsh is easily accessible by road. It is in close proximity to the M20 motorway, as well as
two nearby A-roads, the A259 and A2070.Lydd (London Ashford) Airport is also within 10km of the
town of New Romney.
Rail links to the area are present, with a local railway station that has a direct line to the Dungeness
power stations. However, it could be argued that an improvement to the railway links to the North
would be required for Romney Marsh to be a feasible location. (Google Earth, 2012).
1.3.4 Natural Capital of the Area
The presence of protected land and any sites of special scientific interest could affect the decision on
any of the potential locations. There are small areas of Romney Marsh that are marked as sites of
scientific interest, as well as smaller areas marked as nature reserves (Natural England, Unknown).
5
1.3.5 Community Opposition
Despite the opportunities this project could bring for the residents of Romney Marsh, there remains
strong opposition to the idea due to the health and environmental hazards that a GDF can pose. This
worry is heightened by the fact that Kent is particularly vulnerable to flooding.
This negative view on the proposal seems to be shared by Kent County council leader Paul Carter,
who went on record saying that “Kent County Council is totally opposed to initiating any process that
even entertains the possibility of building a nuclear waste disposal site anywhere near or around Kent”
(Griffiths, 2012). He then went on to suggest a Countywide referendum should the idea be pushed
through.
This view is shared with the majority of the local residents. A local poll showed that 63% (BBC News,
2012) of the community are against the idea. This leaves little room for possibility of Romney Marsh
being chosen as the location for the facility, with the government reluctant to select a location against
the wishes of the local community.

1.3.6 Geology
1.3.6.1 Sub-surface Unsuitability Test
The government managing radioactive waste safely White Paper (Department for Environment Food
and Rural affairs, 2008) identifies a number of basic criteria that can be used to determine if the basic
geology of a proposed site is unsuitable to host a geological disposal facility. The derived
unsuitability criteria are summarized (table.1).

To be applied as an
exclusion criteria
Reasons/Explanations and
Qualifying Comments
Present at
Romney Marsh?
Coal Deposits Yes Intrusion risk to depth, only when
resource at <100m
No
Oil and Gas Yes Intrusion risk to depth No
Oil Shales Yes Intrusion risk to depth No
Metal Ores Some Ores Intrusion risk only where mined at
depth <100m

Disposal of
Wastes/Gas
Storage
Yes Only where already approved at >
100m
No
Aquifers Yes Where all or part of the geological
disposal facility host rock is located
within the aquifer
No
Permeable
formation at
depth <500m
Yes Where all or part of the geological
disposal facility host rock would be
provided by permeable formations
that might reasonably be exploited in
the future
No
Specific complex
hydro-geological
environments
Yes Deep karstic formations and known
sources for thermal springs
No
Table 1 - Initial sub-surface screening criteria (Department for Environment Food and Rural affairs,
2008)

6
The Romney Marsh area was tested, using the unsuitability criteria, and currently available geological
data for the area under consideration (Appendix C). The results of the test are summarized (table.1).
Six deep boreholes exist within the area surrounding Romney Marsh (Appendix C). These boreholes
indicate that the predominant deposits in the depth range being considered as Kimmeridge Clay
overlying the Corrallian Beds and Oxford Clay. All of these deposits can generally be described as
sedimentary mudstones or siltstones.
Kimmeridge Clay is known to generally contain significant quantities of Hydrocarbons (Gallois,
2004). In the Romney Marsh area, however, no commercially significant hydrocarbon deposits have
been reported or licensed (British Geological Society and Lake R.D, 1987) (Department for
Communities and Local Government, 2006) (Department for Energy and Climate Change, 2012).
The hydrogeology of the Romney Marsh area is described as being of limited potential for water
supply of uncertain quality (British Geological Society, 1977). The main source of water in the area is
above ground storage with reduced reliance on aquifers (British Geological Society and Lake R.D,
1987). The permeability of deposits in the area is generally considered to be low with fissures acting
as the main transport mechanism for flow (British Geological Society and Lake R.D, 1987).
The Romney Marsh area is not categorized as unsuitable based on the sub-surface criteria suggested
for initial screening. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that a suitable sub-surface geological
setting could be found within the area to host a GDF.

1.3.6.2 Topography, Geomorphology and Flood Risk
Romney Marsh is a flat low-lying crescent shaped expanse that is generally below high tide level
(Appendix C). (May & Hansom, 2003) suggest that the marsh formed due to a sandy bar forming
across a crescent shaped bay creating a lagoon that subsequently silted-up to form Romney Marsh. To
the seaward side of the sandy bar a cuspate shingle foreland formed due to the prevailing eastward
current transporting shingle from the Sussex coast. The cuspate foreland is constantly being eroded
and reshaped by the prevailing currents with the exact position of the coastline changing significantly
over relatively short time scales (fig.3). The environment agency currently assesses the majority of the
Romney Marsh area to have a risk of flood of 1 in 75 years (Environment Agency, n.d.)
It has been demonstrated, through the safe construction and operation of the Dungeness nuclear power
stations, that it is possible to provide robust flood defences in the area. The current flood protection
strategy is to replenish shingle, eroded from the south coast with shingle sourced from the north coast
of the cuspate foreland (Environment Agency, 2010). The use of replenishment for the protection of
the shoreline is under constant review. Estimates of the replenishment rate are in the order of
50,000m
3
per year with a year on year increase of approximately 880 m
3
/year (Maddrell et al., 1994).
Due to the topography and geomorphology of the Romney Marsh area a significant flood risk exists
that will continue to increase in severity with time. The safe operation of the Dungeness nuclear
power station demonstrates that safe and economical flood defences can be constructed in the area.
Siting a GDF in the area would, however, require a larger scale more longer term flood defence
scheme potentially permanently altering a coast line that is described as being “of international
importance”
(English Nature, Unknown).





7










1.4 Selection of alternative site for geological disposal facility
Even though West Cumbria and Romney Marsh were two areas that were put forward for further
analysis from the stakeholders, it was felt necessary to consider other areas that could possibly host a
geological disposal facility. This report will look at one other area in the UK that seems most suitable
for hosting a geological disposal facility. This area will then be compared to West Cumbria and Kent
in a decision matrix table in order to identify the most suitable site that could host the geological
disposal facility.
The starting point in proposing an alternative suitable location for a geological disposal facility is to
rule out areas in the UK where it is unsuitable to dispose of nuclear waste. The remaining areas can
then be investigated to identify whether the site meets the geological requirements for establishing a
geological disposal facility together with other factors.
The following criteria will be used to identify a site location for a repository in the UK:
 Locate site near running or closed down nuclear power stations.
 Site must not be located in an area which could significantly affect the surrounding natural
environment.
 Site must be distant from earthquake prone areas.
 Site must not be within a rock fault zone.
 Site must have an average spacing of 100m between adjacent faults in the rock.
 There must be relatively low stressed rocks.
 Subsurface rocks should have a high thermal conductivity.
The above factors are essential safety features for the location that will be selected for the repository
(Olsson et al., 2009).

1.5 Sizewell
Sizewell has been chosen as our alternative site and will be investigated in this report. It is located on
the Suffolk coast and is home to two separate Nuclear reactors with one in the process of being
decommissioned, and a third being proposed. It is a small village otherwise known for its fishing and
tourism.



Figure 3- Historic Coastline Contours (British Geological Society and Lake R.D, 1987)
8
1.5.1 Community opposition
As Sizewell has not expressed an official interest in the search for a GDF, there is little information
available on the potential public opinion. Sizewell is already home to two nuclear reactors, and with
another one in the planning stages, a level of public opinion towards the nuclear industry can be
ascertained.
There are many groups set on shutting down the Sizewell plants, however most of the arguments for
this are to do with Nuclear power production itself and less to do with the Sizewell area. Every year a
group of protestors hold a camp near the Sizewell plant (Stop Nuclear Power, 2012). This
demonstration is designed to promote their views, and try to educate the local population on the
dangers of Nuclear power. With the recent Fukushima disaster in Japan, and a recent study in France -
(Shutdown Sizewell Campaign, Unknown) showing that children living in the vicinity of a Nuclear
power plant have a higher leukaemia incidence rate - the public are very worried about the dangers of
Nuclear power.
1.5.2 Earthquake and fault zones
A map of geological fault zones in the UK as shown in figure 5 shows the North of England, Scotland,
Wales, Southwest and West midlands as having a high frequency of fault zones as compared with the
South East and East midlands.
The identification of fractures within the bedrock at an existing geological disposal facility in Sweden
was considered “the biggest factor for long-term safety as it is essential to limit groundwater flow”
(Olsson et al., 2009).
The effects earthquakes would have on altering the structure of bedrock was also considered to ensure
long term safety of the facility. Historic data of earthquakes in the United Kingdom were studied to
ensure that the future geological facility would not be close to any earthquake prone areas. Figure 4
shows that earthquakes have historically occurred numerous times in the west as compared to the east
of the UK. This figure agrees with figure 5 which shows that the majority of the fault zones also lie in
this region. The South-East, North-East, East Scotland and Southwest Scotland have reduced
seismometer readings, making the South-East a suitable proposition for the location of the GDF.













Figure 5 – Geological fault zones
in the UK (Esri, 2010)
Figure 4- Earthquake history
in the UK (British Geological
society, Unknown)
9
1.5.3 Topography
The topography of the area is also important when looking at the suitability of a geological disposal
facility. As mentioned previously in the report, the existing repository facilities around the world were
all constructed on a low relief terrain with little variation in the regional topography. The relief map of
the United Kingdom in Appendix D illustrates the height level of land above water, clearly illustrating
the East midlands and South-East region as being the lowest relief terrains with little variation in the
topography. This region was also identified as suitable in the previous section when looking at fault
zones and earthquakes.
1.5.4 Flooding
Andra, the agency in charge of the management for nuclear waste in France had identified the
potential for flooding as one of the main criteria in deciding the location of its underground repository.
Appendix D illustrates the flood plain zones in England. The East-midlands flood plain zones are
significant compared to the rest of the UK which has limited flooding warnings.
1.5.5 Transport
Sizewell, which is located on the coast, has a large shipping port located nearby at Harwich. There are
no adequate road links currently to enable the movement of waste from the rest of the country to
Sizewell. There are however rail links nearby, but they do not currently service Sizewell. The nearest
airfield is Bentwaters Royal Air Force Base just 18km (Google Earth, 2012) away by road. Again,
significant investments would need to be made to facilitate the disposal of waste at this site.
1.5.6 Geology
The following table 2 from (Royal Haskoning, 2009) gives a description of the geology under the
Sizewell B in sequential and descending order. Sizewell B power plant is situated very close to the
potential geological disposal facility location in Sizewell.


Table 2- Geology of Sizewell B (Royal Haskoning, 2009)
10
The upper Chalk layer was found to be down to -150 m Ordnance Datum. The sequence of materials
between the upper chalk layer and the pre-permian rocks which are below are not known due limited
data information. With limited geological data available from the British Geological Society, Deep
boreholes at Harwich were analysed and indicated that the pre-permian rocks start at -400 m OD and
extend down to a considerable depth. This is why it was chosen that our geological disposal facility
would be down to -500 m in depth. (EDF Energy, 2011).
The report by produced by EDF also states that the Sizewell region “lies within the Anglo-Brabant
Platform, a crustal block that has suffered only limited deformation in the past 450 million years”
(EDF Energy, 2011).

The major aquifer present at Sizewell is the confined Chalk group. The Chalk and Crag aquifers “are
currently assessed as poor (quantitative) with poor chemical quality” (Department of Energy and
Climate Change, 2010). The Sizewell area is not known to have any other suitable natural resources
underground (oil and gas, hydrocarbons, coal deposits). It is therefore reasonable to conclude that a
suitable sub-surface geological setting could be found within the area to host a GDF.

1.6 Decision Making Procedure
The site selection decision is based on a large range of interrelated and, in some cases disparate,
considerations. The site selection method must, therefore, fairly compare these issues in an accurate
and transparent manner.
A comparative scoring system, based on a one to five scale with five being the best score, has been
employed. Four critical considerations have been identified for the site selection; social issues,
technical issues, proximity to transport infrastructure and cost. The score for each of the critical
considerations is to be based on the average score of a number of sub-categories. This system allows a
wide reaching assessment to be made of each of the critical considerations using a large range of data
sources.
The site with the highest average score across these four critical considerations will be carried forward
to the design stage of the project.
1.6.1 Weightings
Weighting have been applied to each of the critical consideration to reflect their various importance in
relation to the construction of a GDF. The weightings, along with a rational for their derivation, is
presented (table.1)












11
Table 3- Weightings for Decision Matrix table

1.6.2 Uncertainty
Where significant uncertainty exists in the allocation of a score to a sub criterion the weighting
applied to that sub criteria is to be reduced by 25%. This is to reduce the impact uncertainty has on the
site selection process.
1.6.3 Weighted Average Multipliers
Under the currently adopted procedure for selecting a site for a GDF two critical conditions must be
met; the area passes and initial geological screening and the local population accepts the proposals. To
account for these conditions in the decision-making process two multipliers will be applied to the
weighted average for each of the sites.
If a site does not meet the initial geological screening criteria the weighted average score will be
multiplied by zero. If the site does meet the initial screening criteria the weighted average score is to
be multiplied by one. This is to prevent any sites that are inherently geologically unsuitable from
being considered.
If a community has formally rejected a proposal for a GDF the final weighted average is to be
multiplied by zero. If a community has committed to the construction of a GDF the final weighted
average is to be multiplied by one. If a community is still at the decision-making phase a multiplier to
be used that represents the probability that the community will accept the construction of a GDF.







Critical
Consideration
Weighting Rational
Social Issues 3 The population density of the UK necessitates that social issues be the
primary concern regarding the construction of a GDF since it is not feasible
to site the GDF in a sufficiently isolated location to avoid impacting on
communities.
Technical Issues 1.5 It was felt that technical issues are subordinate to social issues in relation to
the construction of a GDF since Nirex identified numerous technically
feasible site but failed to implement a GDF due to a lack of consideration of
social issues.
Proximity to
Transport
Infrastructure
1 Transporting waste safely to the GDF will be crucial to the success of the
project. It maybe desirable for numerous modes of transport to be employed.
New transport infrastructure will also represent a significant cost and
planning obstacle to the project. It was, however felt that social and
technical issues are more critical than those of waste transport.
Cost

0.75 Whilst it will be desirable to achieve value for money during the
implementation of the GDF the cost of the facility will not be critical to the
implementation of the GDF since it is considered a necessity under the
MRWS white paper.
12
Table 4 – Decision matrix table
1.7 Decision Matrix


Allerdale Copeland Romney
Marsh
Sizewell
Criteria Score Weight Score Weight Score Weight Score Weight
Social
Level of previous experience with
the nuclear industry
4 3 5 3 3 3 4 3
Impact on tourism and community
image
1 3 1 3 2 3 2 2.25
Natural capital of the area 1 3 2 3 2 3 3 3
Historical capital of the area 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3
Population within the proposed
area
4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3
Weighted Average Score 8.4 9.6 9.0 10.2
Technical
Susceptibility of the area to
flooding
5 1.5 5 1.5 1 1.5 4 1.5

Complexity of local topography 1 1.5 1 1.5 3 1.5 5 1.5

Reliance of local populations on
subsurface aquifers
1 1.5 1 1.5 3 1.5 4 1.5

Avenues for spoil storage and
disposal
2 1.5 2 1.5 4 1.125 3 1.5

Weighted Average Score 3.4 3.4 3.8 6
Transport
Proximity to existing waste stores 4 1 4 1 1 1 2 1
Proximity to rail infrastructure 5 1 4 1 4 1 3 1
Proximity to road infrastructure 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 1
Proximity to airports 3 1 1 1 4 1 4 1
Proximity to ports 2 1 1 1 4 1 4 1
Weighted Average Score 3 2.2 3.4 3
Cost
Facility cost 4 0.75 4 0.75 2 0.75 3 0.75
Weighted Average Cost Criteria
Score
3 3 1.5 2.25
AVERAGE SCORE FOR
EACH SET OF CRITERIA
4.5 4.6 4.4 5.4
Does the site pass the initial
geological screening criteria?
1 1 1 1
What is the likelihood of the
local council accepting the
construction of a GDF?
0.80 0.85 0 0.75
Final Score 3.6 3.91 0 4.1
13
1.8 Conclusion
From the decision matrix in section 1.7, the Sizewell location proves to be the best option for hosting
the future geological disposal facility. Sizewell received a Score of 4.1 which is higher than the score
received by Allerdale, Copeland and Romney Marsh.
The Allerdale and Copeland sites had a lower score mainly due to their geological formation and the
impact building the geological facility will have on tourism, with the Lake District National Park sited
in Cumbria. West Cumbria has inconsistencies in the geological subsurface rock formations. There
are also major aquifers in the area that are currently being exploited, creating a large exclusion area
across West Cumbria. The variation in height of the land surface also means that the topography is
unsuitable. The area of West Cumbria was supposedly known to be - basement under sedimentary
cover (BUSC) – ideally suitable to store radioactive nuclear waste beneath, however recent analysis
has shown there are multiple fault zones in the structure of the rock, deeming the area unsafe to
construct a repository (Smythe, 2011).
Romney Marsh was not chosen from the decision matrix mainly due to social and political factors.
Section 1.3.5 show that 63% of the local population was against the idea of having a geological
disposal facility built in Kent. The social factor is a major issue as a geological disposal facility will
only be put in a location where the local community has volunteered, which is why the social issue
had a larger factor than any other issue in the decision matrix table. Romney Marsh is also prone to
flooding which would require a substantial flood defence scheme to be conceived, adding to the cost
and complexity of the operation of building the geological disposal facility.
Sizewell is the location that has been chosen mainly due to its convenient location: It is in the South-
East of England close to the sea, which is beneficial when looking at transport routes with being close
to a port. The major negative impact about Sizewell was the impact Sizewell would have on tourism
in the area. However, Since Sizewell already hosts two nuclear power stations and is planning to build
another one; we decided it would not alter the area significantly.














14
2. Pre-Qualification exercise: Design Development
2.1 Introduction
Sizewell was chosen as a result of the preliminary assessment of the suitability of all the potential
sites that were proposed to host the geological disposal facility in Section 1 of the report. This section
will look at the design of the geological disposal facility in Sizewell, both for the underground and
surface facilities. An appropriate preliminary design and location for the surface facilities and
underground facilities will be developed. More detailed design drawings will follow and will be
produced on AutoCAD illustrating the civil/structural aspects of the GDF (surface facilities, waste
transport and reception, underground access). The waste quantities that will need to be disposed of in
the geological disposal facility will be explored in order to determine appropriate transport logistics
for the operations of the facility. A Process flow Chart will be done for the emplacement of the waste
from the port in Sizewell to the disposal area, as well as underground from the point of reception at
the base of the drift tunnel to the respective storage areas of the waste packages underground.

2.2 Waste Quantities for Disposal
The quantity of waste to be disposed of via geological disposal is a key consideration in the design of
a geological disposal facility. In this section the data sources, assumptions and chosen waste
quantities for the design of the geological disposal facility are presented. The reliability and accuracy
of the chosen data sources is also explored.
2.2.1 Data Sources
The two primary data sources that are utilised to determine the quantity of waste to be stored in a
geological disposal facility are: the 2010 UK radioactive waste inventory and the 2010 estimate of
waste for geological disposal. These documents were prepared by the NDA and DECC and can be
viewed as the most accurate publicly available sources of information regarding the quantities of
radioactive waste within the UK. A third document, Nirex Report N/085 was also used as a source of
supplementary information regarding the packaging of the waste to be disposed of.
2.2.1.1 The 2010 UK Radioactive Waste Inventory (UKRWI)
The UKWRI is the most recent inventory of what is currently classified as radioactive waste within
the UK. The scope of the inventory extends to; “HLW, ILW, LLW and some high volume low level
waste” (Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2011a). The inventory includes all currently
existing waste and also estimates for waste which will arise in the future as a result of current
processes. A break down is given of volumes of waste, volumes of waste when conditioned, volumes
of waste when packaged and the resulting number of packages. Quantities of waste that exist and are
predicted to arise are also given on a site by site basis for all nuclear sites around the UK.
It is recognised that the UKWRI does not consider the following:
 Waste that would require disposal via the GDF route arising from the construction of new
nuclear power stations in the future
 Spent fuel, Uranium and Plutonium is not currently considered waste and is therefore not
included in the UKWRI
 Overpacking of HLW waste canisters for final disposal
2.2.1.2 The 2010 Estimate of Waste for Geological Disposal (EWGD)
The EWGD provides a baseline inventory for geological disposal that is based on the UKWRI (see
section: 2.2.1.1). The baseline inventory differs from the UKWRI in the respect that it “reports the
volume of radioactive waste and materials potentially destined for geological disposal” (Department
15
of Energy and Climate Change, 2011b). The scope of the report also extends to the estimation of
quantities of spent fuel, plutonium and uranium that may need to be disposed of via the GDF route.
The EWGD also provides an upper inventory estimate. The upper inventory provides “what is
considered to be a realistic higher volume scenario” (Department of Energy and Climate Change,
2011b). This higher volume scenario includes disposal of waste arising from eight new build nuclear
reactors, the extended operation of existing nuclear reactors and the disposal of all defence uranium
and plutonium via the geological disposal route.
It is recognised that the EWGD has the following limitations:
 Waste quantities arising from a nuclear new build program is inherently uncertain since the
AP 1000 and EPR reactor types, being considered for construction in the UK (Department of
Energy and Climate Change, 2011c), have never been tested
 Package numbers for each type of waste are not specified
 The upper inventory is based on a large number of assumptions
2.2.1.3 Nirex Report N/085
Nirex report N/085 is an inventory of all radioactive waste in the UK, prepared by Nirex, in 2003. The
report details the packaging methods for various types of waste including; spent fuel, uranium and
plutonium. Nirex report N/085 will only be used to derive information regarding the packaging of
various types of waste.
It is recognised that Nirex report N/085 has the following limitations:
 Does not consider how waste arising from new build reactors will be packaged
 Details speculative methods for the packaging of uranium and plutonium that have not yet
been implemented
2.2.2 Assumptions
In the preparation of this report a number of assumptions regarding the quantities of waste be stored
have been made. The assumptions made are presented.
2.2.2.1 Nuclear New Build Program
It is assumed that the nuclear new build program involving the construction of eight new reactors will
go ahead. This assumption has been made in the context of shifting governmental policy towards
nuclear power (Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2012) (Harvey, 2012).
2.2.2.2 Spent Fuel, Uranium and Plutonium
It is assumed that all spent fuel will eventually be disposed of via the GDF route. In light of the
nuclear new build program assumptions made (see section 2.2.2.1) the upper inventory as specified in
the EWGD is to be used as the final packaged volume.
The 2010 baseline inventory for quantities of uranium and plutonium as given in the EWGD are to be
used. This assumption was made on the basis that the majority of extra waste considered in the upper
inventory is a result of the disposal of uranium and plutonium associated with nuclear defence
activities. It is not considered likely that nuclear defence activities will cease within the anticipated
time frame of the GDF.
2.2.2.3 Waste Quantity Conversions
For planning purposes it is desirable to convert waste volumes to numbers of packages. Conversion
factors for LLW, ILW and HLW have been derived based on the information taken from table A1.2 of
the UKWRI (Appendix E). Conversion factors for spent fuel, uranium and plutonium have been
derived based on information taken from table 5, table 12 and table 14 of Nirex report N/085
16
(Appendix F) The conversion factors were determined by dividing the packaged volume by the
number of packages given in the relevant tables. The derived conversion factors to be used are:
 LLW – 70.76 m
3
/package
 ILW – 2.17 m
3
/package
 HLW – 0.196 m
3
/package
 Spent Fuel – 1.7 m
3
/package
 Uranium – 0.580/3.30 m
3
/package
 Plutonium – 0.890 m
3
/package
It is recognised that these factors may vary for individual waste streams within each of the waste
categories. It is, however, hoped that these global averages will provide a sufficiently accurate
estimate for planning purposes.
2.2.3 Waste Quantities for Design
The quantities of waste to be disposed of at the GDF are presented (Table.2).

Waste Type Final Packaged Volume for
Disposal Including all Assumed
Future Arising (m
3
)
Conversion
Factor
(m
3
/package)
Total Number of Waste
Packages
LLW 150,000 70.76 2150
ILW 786,000 2.17 365,000
HLW 12,000 0.196 61,500
Spent Fuel 22,200 1.70 13,100
Uranium(1) 106,000 0.580/3.30 183,000/32,100
Plutonium 7,820 0.890 8,790
Table 5 - Final Packaged Waste Volume for Geological Disposal Considering All Future Waste Arising
and Corresponding Package Numbers
Note 1: It is not currently known how Uranium will be packaged for transport and disposal. Two methods have been
suggested (Nirex, 2003), utilising the 500 litre drums and 3m
3
boxes. For planning purposes both methods were considered
2.2.4 Waste Locations for Design
In order to determine the logistics of transporting waste to the GDF it is necessary to determine the
distribution of radioactive waste around the UK.
A spread sheet (Appendix G) was developed to determine the distribution of waste at various sites
around the country. The basis of the spreadsheet was the UKWRI breakdown of waste quantities for
each site around the UK (Appendix H). It was assumed that future LLW, ILW and HLW, not
considered in the UKWRI, would be distributed around the UK in the same proportions as current
waste.
It is recommended that spent fuel, uranium and plutonium by conditioned and packaged at Sellafield.
This recommendation was made on the basis that Sellafield already handles the reprocessing of spent
fuel and therefore has the appropriate infrastructure. On this basis it is assumed that all spent fuel,
uranium and plutonium must be transported from Sellafield to the GDF.

17
2.3 Transportation of Waste to Site
2.3.1 Modes of Transport
As set out by the NDA (Nuclear Decomissioning Authority, 2010), there are three approved modes of
transport that can be used to transfer nuclear waste to the chosen site at Sizewell. The approved modes
of transport are rail, road and sea. Each method of transport has advantages and disadvantages, the
strength of which will depend on the type and length of journey, and the amount of safety issues
regarding the waste which is being transported.
2.3.1.1 Transport by Sea
Sea transport is the most desirable method for transporting the nuclear waste, as it has been used
successfully and safely worldwide for over 30 years (Nuclear Decomissioning Authority, 2010)
One of the main benefits is the safety of the method of transport, as it will reduce the proximity of the
waste to the human population.
However, due to the level of handling required to allow ship transportation, it will be considered
unfeasible to use this method unless the distance from the waste-producing site to the waste storage
site is significant, and there is a large amount of waste to be transported. When these two conditions
are satisfied, and the waste-producing site is situated within a reasonable distance to a port, sea
transport will be selected as the method to transfer waste.
2.3.1.2 Transport by Rail
Rail is the second most desirable method of transport for transferring the waste. It is considered a
relatively safe mode of transport, although the waste is rarely kept away from the human population.
The advantage of using the rail network for the transport of waste is that it requires significantly less
handling in order to load and unload the train. It may still be feasible to transport smaller amounts of
waste to the storage site, even over a larger distance. If there is no local or on-site port at the waste-
producing site, rail will be chosen as the mode of transport. If there is no close or on-site railway
station, the feasibility of the construction of a station will be considered, depending on the volume and
nature of the waste produced at the site in question.
2.3.1.3 Transport by Road
Road transport has been identified as the least favourable mode of transport to be used for the transfer
of nuclear waste to the Sizewell site. It is seen as the least safe method, mainly due to the level of
human influence that impacts upon each journey. Due to the safety issues involved with road transport,
there are significant speed and routing restrictions for the use of this method of transport. It is
estimated that around 45% of transport packages are likely to be too heavy for the use of road
transport (Nuclear Decomissioning Authority, 2010).
It is clear that some level of road transport will be required particularly for sites producing relatively
low volumes of waste. Where there is no onsite railway or port facility it may be desirable to transport
waste to nearby rail or port facilities by road. Road transport is also a feasible option for short
journeys; however, it is unlikely that any waste producing sites will be sufficiently close to Sizewell
for this to be viable.
2.3.2 Options for Transport
For some waste-producing sites, more than one mode might be combined to create the most efficient
transport route to the storage facility at Sizewell. The five combinations of modes that can be used are
set out by the NDA as the following; (Nuclear Decomissioning Authority, 2012)
18
2.3.2.1 Option 1
Option 1 uses only rail transport to transfer waste. This option is only available for waste-producing
sites with an on-site railway station.
2.3.2.2 Option 2
Option 2 again uses rail transport to transfer waste, but this option is for sites that do not have an on-
site railway station, and so requires the use of HGV’s vehicles and other road vehicles to get the waste
to the railway network.
2.3.2.3 Option 3
Option 3 uses only road transport to transfer the waste to the GDF site. This option is available for all
sites.
2.3.2.4 Option 4
Option 4 involves transport by sea. It is assumed that either the waste-producing site has an on-site or
local port, and that rail transport will be used to and from sites where required.
2.3.2.5 Option 5
Option 5 again involves the use of transport by sea, with the use of road transport to and from sites as
required.
2.3.2.6 Transport Option Preference Hierarchy
Options 4 and 5 have been chosen as the most desirable options. Option 4 will be selected for any site
with an existing onsite port. If a sufficiently large port exists within the locality of the waste
producing site option 5 will be selected. Where no onsite or nearby port exists, options 1 or 2 will be
chosen since rail transport has been identified as being lower risk than road transport. Option 3 will
only be chosen when no other options are feasible since it is not possible to transport all packages by
road and is also identified as the highest risk method of transport.
2.3.3 Selection of Modes of Transport for Existing Sites
A total of 38 waste producing sites have been considered in the design waste quantity (see section
2.2.4 – waste locations for design). Only sites producing significant quantities of waste destined for
geological disposal will be considered for the purpose of this report. A site producing significant
quantities of waste was deemed to be any site that the UKWRI reports as having a combined total of
over 1000 packages (Appendix G – Distribution of Waste Spreadsheet).
The desired transport method for each of the sites producing significant quantities of waste has been
determined based on the transport option preference hierarchy identified (Table.1).

Site Selected Option Justification
AWE Aldermaston 2 The site it too far from the coast for option 4 or 5 to be practical. No on
site rail link exists necessitating HGV transport to the nearby rail link in
basingstoke.
Berkeley 2 No local port means option 2 is the most viable transport mode for
Berkeley.
Bradwell 2 As Bradwell is so close to Sizewell, it would not be justified to use sea
transport, so option 2 is the most viable.
Calder Hall 4 Calder Hall is on the Sellafield site and can therefore utilize the onsite
port to be constructed at Sellafield
19
Capenhurst 1 The onsite rail station at Capenhurst makes all rail transport the most
desirable option.
Dounreay 4 It is recommended that an onsite port be constructed to enable option 4
for the transport of waste to the GDF
Dungeness 5 As Dungeness is near to the coast, option 5 is appropriate, with a
number of local ports available, including Dover.
Hartlepool 5 Option 5 can be used for Hartlepool, with local – but not on-site – ports
available.
Heysham 5 Option 5 can also be used for Heysham, with local ports available.
Hinkley Point 2 There is no on site railway terminal, and no local port. Option 2 is the
selected mode of transport for Hinkley Point.
Hunterston 4 An onsite port exists at the Hunterston site enabling option 4
LLWR Drigg 5 Option 5 can be used for the LLWR in Cumbria, via the proposed on
site port at Sellafield.
Oldbury 2 The lack of an on-site port or rail terminal at the Oldbury power station
means that option 2 is the most viable transport option for this site.
Sellafield 4 Option 4 will be used for transport from the Sellafield site with an on-
site port proposed for construction.
Sizewell 3 As the Sizewell site is so close to the GDF, option 3 is a suitable
transport mode.
Torness 4 An onsite port exists at Torness making option 4 possible
Trawsfynydd 3 Trawsfynydd nuclear power station is in an extremely remote location
with no nearby ports and only local rail lines. Option 3 is the only
feasible option without the construction of extensive new local
infrastructure.
Windscale 4 Windscale is on the Sellafield site and can therefore utilize the onsite
port to be constructed at Sellafield
Winfrith 2 Waste can be transported by road to the nearby Weymouth to London
Waterloo rail line
Wylfa 4 An onsite port exists at the Wylfa site. Option 4 is therefore viable.
Table 6 - Selection of Transport Methods for Major Waste Producing Sites
2.3.4 Logistics and Delivery Rates
The main challenge of siting a GDF in the east of England is facilitating the safe transportation of the
large volume of waste arising at Sellafield to the GDF. A study has been undertaken to determine the
logistics of this operation.
The preferred transport option between Sellafield and the GDF has been identified as transport option
4 (section 2.3.2.4). Barrow-in-Furness is currently utilised as a port for waste being shipped overseas
from Sellafield (Nuclear Decomissioning Authority, 2010). In light of the quantity of waste to be
transferred to the GDF from Sellafield it was not felt to be sustainable to continue the use of Barrow-
in-Furness. It was concluded that the construction of a port on the Sellafield site would lower the
overall risk of the transport process and minimise the exposure of local residents to waste. It is also
intended for an onsite port to be constructed at the GDF.
2.3.4.1 Transport Vessels
The international maritime organisation requires that nuclear waste be transported using vessels that
conform to the International Code for the Safe Carriage of Packaged Irradiated Nuclear Fuel,
Plutonium and High-Level Radioactive Wastes on Board Ships (International Maritime Organisation,
2011). Pacific Nuclear Transport Limited (PNTL) currently operates a fleet of ships that conform to
20
these regulations (Appendix I). The specification assumed for ships transporting waste between
Sellafield and the GDF (table 4) is based on those of the ships operated by PNTL.








Table 7 - Specification of Waste Transport Ships
2.3.4.2 Accident Rates and Risk Assessment
It has been reported (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2001) that even if a transport ship is
involved in a collision the risk of nuclear material being released into the environment is negligibly
low. This is due to the extensive safety measures in place to prevent the release of hazardous material.
It was, however, felt that even if a relatively modest incident were to occur the public perception of
such an incident and the associated delays could have a serious impact on the project. A probabilistic
risk assessment was conducted to determine the total risk of an incident occurring during the course a
single journey from Sellafield to the GDF (Appendix J – Transport Risk Calcs). It was found that the
probability of an incident occurring per journey is 4.0x10
-4
.
The delay to the transport process associated with an incident occurring is difficult to determine since
it would depend on the severity and cause of the incident. To estimate the potential delay to the
project a major national project, delayed due to an accident, was sought. The delay to the space shuttle
program following the challenger disaster was found to be 3 years (National Geographic, 2012). It
was felt that an incident involving the transport of nuclear waste would have a similar impact on the
national psyche and require an enquiry of a similar length prior to reinitiating the process.
2.3.4.3 Summary of Logistics
It is anticipated that the time frame for waste to be emplaced within the GDF will be approximately
150 years. The logistics of delivering waste to the site was calculated (Appendix K – logistics calcs)
based on this timeframe. Delays to the transport program resulting from incidents during transport
were also included in the logistics calculations. The main outcomes of the logistics study are
presented (table.5)





Table 8 - Summary of Transport Logistics



Length 110 meters
Breadth 20 meters
Draft 7 meters
Speed 14 knots
Max Number of Packages 20
Deadweight 5000 tonnes
Average Number of Transport Vessels Arriving at the GDF per Week 4.5
Size of Transport Vessel Fleet 6
Maximum Number of Packages Delivered Per Week 92
Anticipated Number of Incidents During Waste Transport 12
21
2.4 Design specification: Development of the brief
2.4.1 Surface Facilities
 Need multiple Access underground via three vertical shafts and a drift tunnel
 Need separation of ventilation systems from operations
 Need Security of access in case of a default in shafts
 Operational Requirements:
o Separate waste handling lines for ILW and HLW packages.
o LLW and ILW inspection, monitoring and emplacing process to be designed to
handle as maximum delivery rate of 92 packages per week (see section 2.3.4.3)
o HLW inspection, monitoring and emplacing process to be designed to handle a
maximum delivery rate of 9 packages per week.
o A facility management centre to control both surface and subsurface activities with an
unobstructed view of the entire site.
o Security installations at all entrances
o Medical services and Health Building
o Food Service Building
o Training Building
o Visitor Centre
o On site power generation system with redundancy
o Fire house
o Access Underground:
 Two Vertical Shafts for Ventilation
 One Vertical shaft for emergency (people access or could transport waste if
one of the other tunnels cannot be used)
 2 drift tunnels to Transport waste underground
(Sorenson et al., 2008) (Nuclear Decomissioning authority, 2010) (Andra,
2010)

 Construction Support Facilities: Building requirements
o Construction Management Offices
o Rock Crushing Facility (Including Crusher and Storage Area for Rock to be Crushed)
o Connection between dispatch rail siding and rock crusher to transport material off site
o Excavated Rock Stockpile: Minimum Capacity of 3500m
3
of Enclosed Storage Space
o Fire/Rescue Station: Full Fire Station (with support for minimum of 3 engines) and
Mines Rescue Capability
o Buffer Material Plant: Produces buffer material for sealing subsurface storage areas
22
o Workshops and Storage areas for construction plant and materials.
o Access Underground:
 2 Vertical shafts for ventilation and emergency use
 1 Drift tunnel for movement of plant and materials between surface and
subsurface
2.4.2 Underground Operational Requirements
 Develop design for low strength sedimentary rock (Chalk)
 Provide storage for 150,000m
3
LLW (See Section: 2.2.3)
 Provide storage for 786,000m
3
ILW (See Section: 2.2.3)
 Provide storage for 12,000m
3
HLW (See Section: 2.2.3)
 Provide storage for 22,200m
3
SF (See Section 2.2.3)
 Design facility with the capability to expand tunnels for future storage use.
 Ensure minimum separation of 500m between different types of waste.
 Facility must not hinder nearby Sites of Scientific Interest. (Sorenson et al., 2008)
2.4.3 Waste Transport and Infrastructure Requirements
 Provide a port to accommodate four transport ships. (Approximate dimensions 110m long x
20m wide with min operating depth of 15 meters)
 Provide unloading and transfer system capable of unloading transport ships within 6 hours of
arrival (based on assumed cargo of 18 packages per ship)
 Provide rail spur to connect GDF directly with Leiston rail spur
 Provide eight 240 meter long sidings to accommodate trains arriving and awaiting dispatch
 Provide parking space for 26 unloaded HGVs
 Provide space for 2 HGVs carrying waste packages awaiting approval to enter site.
 Provide unloading facility for one HGV
 Provide parking for 100 staff
 Provide parking for 20 visitors to the site
2.4.4 Safety
 Provide a robust flood defence scheme for the site
 Ensure all above ground building designs are compatible with seismic design guidance
 Minimise the exposure of local residents to waste packages.
 Provide multiple emergency access routes by road to the site.
23
2.4.5 Sustainability and environmental impacts
 Mitigate the visual impact of the surface facilities on the local communities of Sizewell and
Leiston
 Optimise building designs to reduce whole life energy use, embodied carbon and use of non-
renewable resources
 Surface facilities will not encroach on areas that have statutory protection (SSSIs and SACs)
 Maximise opportunities to maintain and improve local biodiversity.
 Ensure access to local community services is unaffected during and after construction
 Maximise the onsite use/reuse of excavated spoil to minimise the quantities that must be
transported away from the site

2.5 Preliminary Design of Proposed Sites in Sizewell
2.5.1 Introduction
Sizewell has been selected as the most favourable area for the siting of a GDF. The surface facilities
represent a relatively small part of the overall GDF construction project. It will, however, be the
surface facilities that project the image of the GDF to local communities and those visiting the site.
The selection of an appropriate site and design for the surface facilities is therefore a critical design
consideration.
The area around the Sizewell nuclear power station is relatively constrained. Areas of
environmentally protected land and areas already scheduled for the development of Sizewell C are not
suitable for the siting of the GDF surface facilities (fig 6: overview map showing potential sites).
Siting the surface facilities to cause minimum disruption to the local communities of Leiston,
Eastbridge and Sizewell was also a key consideration.
Two potentially suitable sites were identified for the siting of the surface facilities (fig 6: overview
map showing potential sites). The constraints and opportunities associated with siting the surface
facilities of the GDF on either of these two sites are explored. Preliminary designs for the surface
facility layout are presented and analysed to determine the most promising site and layout for further
development.

24
2.5.2 Location of Sites


























SITE 1
SITE 2
Figure 6- Map of Sizewell
25
2.5.3 Constraints and Opportunities
2.5.3.1 Site 1
Site 1 is located to the North of the existing Nuclear reactors and extends to the edge of Minsmere
Level (RSPB Nature Reserve). The site totals the required area of 1km
2
, consisting mainly of
farmland, a small area of woodland (0.1km
2
(Google Earth, 2012)) and one residential property (Ash
Wood Cottages). Located to the East of the site is a large area of land sitting on a flood plain. To the
North of the site a farmhouse is situated close to the boundary, two residential properties and a small
lane (Sandings Lane) to the West, and to the South is woodland and one residential property. The site
is located over 2.5km away from Leiston centre (Google Earth, 2012).
Locating the GDF within Site 1 would require the destruction of 0.1km
2
of woodland, the purchasing
of 1 residential property, and potential for disruption to another 4. Excluding the aforementioned
properties the surrounds would be largely unaffected. The site gently slopes from West to East
starting at 15m AOD falling to 9m AOD, this shouldn’t present too much of a challenge for the site
layout.
Road access to the site would either be from the West of the site via Sandings lane (which would need
widening to cope with the traffic), or via the South of the site as an extension of the current access
road to Sizewell A, B and ostensibly C. the site is situated approximately 1km away from the coast
which would mean waste could feasibly be transported ashore. To connect the site by rail, an
extension to the Leiston spur would require roughly 2km of new track to be laid.
Extra site space could be found by extending the site to the North, encompassing Lower Abby Farm
which is a Grade II listed building, and to the south where Sizewell C temporary works is to be
situated. Lowe Abby Farm house could potentially be incorporated into the site without the need to
demolish it. Site offices will be needed, and could provide the site with a touch of traditional character.
2.5.3.2 Site 2
Site 2 is located to the south west of the existing Sizewell A reactor. The site 2 has a total area of
approximately 1-kilometer square. Sizewell Gap to the South, Lovers Lane to the West and Sandy
Lane to the North border site 2. The Sizewell Belts SSSI borders the site to the Northeast. The
majority of site 2 is currently used for agriculture.
Approximately 20% of the site is covered by existing flora. It will prove necessary to remove the two
areas of flora to the north of the site. These areas of flora are generally poorly developed and not
under any specific protection. It is not anticipated that the tree line bordering the south of the site will
need to be removed. It may prove beneficial to extend and develop this tree line to mitigate the visual
impact of the site on the community of Leiston.
It is only anticipated that a single private property within the area of Site 2 would need to be
purchased as a result of the construction of the surface facilities. Thirteen private properties share a
border with the site. The five properties on Sandy Lane will be the most severely affected.
Site 2 slopes from the southwest to the northeast. The southwest boundary of the site is approximately
15 meters AOD whilst the northeast boundary is 0 meters AOD. A cut and fill operation will be
necessary to develop a level construction platform. It may be possible to utilize this cut and fill
operation to raise the surface facilities above flood level or lower the surface facilities below the
sightline of local residences.
The current access road to Sizewell A and B passes through Site 2. It may also be possible to develop
further paths of entrance and egress to the site from the bordering roads. A direct path between the
Sizewell C construction site and Site 2 is not possible due to the presence of the Sizewell Belts SSSI.
The eastern edge of the site is within approximately 300 meters of the coast making a direct route
between a potential mooring and the site possible. It would only require a minimal length extension
to the Leiston rail spur to provide a direct rail route into Site 2.
26
Leiston Common and Reckham Pits Wood are not designated as protected areas and it may prove
possible to extend Site 2 into this area if necessary. It is undesirable to construct on this area since it is
a popular area for recreation. It would also necessitate the compulsory purchase and demolition of
five properties.
2.5.4 Conceptual layouts for Surface Facilities
Four conceptual drawings for surface facility layout were done for this report. Two conceptual layouts
for Site 1 and another 2 layouts were done for site 2. A more clear drawing of the two sites are
presented in the two figures below showing the area that is possible to build on. All the layout
drawings were performed on AutoCAD. After the drawings were done, a decision matrix table was
filled for each site in order to identify the best possible site that this could host the geological disposal
facility based on several criteria, as shown in Table 9


2.5.4.1 Surface Facilities layout
The conceptual surface facility layout drawings are presented (Fig 9 - Drawing No. 01/03)












Figure 7- Site 1 area Figure 8- Site 2 area
Construction
Area
Waste Handling
Area
Operations
Area
Road Waste
Entrance
Equipment Storage
Link to Existing
Road Network
Link to Port
Secondary Access
Visitor Center
Security road,
site fence,
spoil screening bonds
and tree border
Flood
embankment
Rail Sidings
Construction
Location 1 - Potential Layout 1
Operations
Area
Operations
Area
Waste Handling
Area
Equipment
Storage
Construction
Area
Construction
Access 1
Operations
Area
Staff
Access
Waste
Access
Construction
Access 2
Secondary Access
Fire
House
Flood
embankment
Location 1 - Potential Layout 2
Waste Handling
Area
DT 1
DT 2
Construction
Area
Operations
Area
Waste Access
Point
Link to National
Rail Network
Link to Port
Construction
Access Point
Staff
Access Point
Existing Road
Flood Embankment
Location 2 - Potential Layout 1
Waste Handling
Area including DT
Operations
Area
Construction
Area
Link to National
Rail Network
Link to Port
Staff
Car
Park
Existing Road
Rail Sidings
HGV's Parking
Construction
Access Point
Flood Embankment
Waste
Access
Point
Slope
Note:
Site Founded at +5mAOD
Location 2 - Potential Layout 2
28
2.5.4.2 Decision Matrix
The decision matrix that got the highest score is shown below in Table 9. This matrix corresponds to
‘Location 1- Potential Layout 2’ in the surface facility layouts in section 2.5.4.1. For reference, the
other site’s decision matrices that obtained lower scores are in appendix L.


Design Option 2 – On Site 1 (Romain)
Description
Separation of the site between the construction/waste handling area and the operations area
Site far away from Leiston
Site location very close to Sizewell C and port on the East side
Embankment on East side of the site and waste coming in from South-East side (minimizing transport
distance from port to surface facilities)
Guard tower in middle of the site to ensure security of the site
Design Criteria Max Score Awarded Justification
Provide infrastructure with the capacity to deliver
up to 2500 waste packages per year
5 5 Links provided to road, rail and sea.
Provide eight 240 meter rail sidings 5 4 Space provided for the railway sidings. May be
constrained by proximity to the Sizewell C site
Provide flood defense to the site 5 5 Flood embankments provided. Site founded at 10m
AOD therefore naturally above the flood level
Minimise the exposure of local residents to waste
packages
10 8 Waste handling areas and transfer of waste from
port will is located as far as possible from
residential areas.
Multiple emergency access routes to the site 5 5 Four access routes provided to numerous areas of
the site.
How well is the visual impact of the surface
facilities mitigated through the proposed site
layout and landscape design
10 6 No specific landscaping features to minimise visual
impacts. Support facilities (which could be designed
to be architecturally pleasing) are situated on the
boundary with Eastbridge
How serious are any impacts the proposed
development has on areas of land that have
statutory protection
5 3 Flood defenses may have an impact on the
Minsmere Level SSSI.
Maximise opportunities to maintain and improve
local biodiversity
5 2 Limited replanting of trees within the site
Ensure access to local community services is
unaffected during and after construction
5 2 Construction of link to Leiston rail spur will cause
long term disruption to a number of local roads and
properties.
Maximise the onsite use/reuse of excavated spoil 5 3 Construction of embankments using the spoil.
Minimise the overall cost of the project to achieve
value for money
10 7 No specific features of the design would
disproportionately alter cost in comparison to other
potential designs.
Total Score
70 50
Principle Advantages of Option: Distance of the site from Leiston. Distance of the waste handling facilities and link to port from Eastbridge.
Connection with Sizewell C site. Clear division between construction and operational facilities and the support facilities.

Recommendations
 Develop measures to minimise the visual impacts of the site on the community of
Eastbridge
 Develop the rail link to the Leiston rail spur
 Explore potential methods of enhancing local biodiversity as a result of the scheme
Table 9: Decision matrix- Site 1
29
2.5.5 Conceptual layouts for Underground Facilities
Six conceptual layouts for the underground facilities have been developed and are presented in
Appendix M. The analysis of each of the options against the general design criteria is presented in the
design matrix format. Upon selecting the conceptual layout for the underground facilities, weaknesses
identified in the table will be used to make improvements in the detailed design.
2.5.5.1 Decision Matrix
The decision matrix that obtained the highest score is shown below in Table 10. The conceptual
design for site D is the design that will be used for the detailed design. For reference, the decision
matrices of the other conceptual designs that obtained lower scores are in Appendix N.
Table 10- Decision Matrix: underground layout D
Design Option D
Description Vertical access shafts are located at the center of the facility. Three adjacent areas
extending North of the center point will be used to store HLW and SF. ILW is to be stored
in linear arrangements to the south of the access shafts. Drift tunnel entrances are located
at the two separate zones.
Design Criterion Max Score Awarded
Provide separate ILW/HLW emplacement vaults at
a distance 500m apart.
5 4.5
Provide adequate area for locating essential
services, including: Package Transfer ,
Reception/Marshalling area; Buffer Store, Spoil
bunker, Forklift garage etc.
5 3.5
Maximise space usage of area 5 4.5
Minimise construction complexities associated
with facility design
5 5
Minimise excavation of spoil from construction 5 3.5
Minimise overall length of transport and service
tunnels
5 2.5
Maximise length of deposition tunnels 5 4.5
Ensure second drift tunnel can undergo
construction/excavation whilst waste transfer can
simultaneously be in operation. take place
simultaneously
5 3
Provide two strategically located drift tunnels 5 4
Potential for future expansion 5 3.5
Creativity in design 10 1.5
Total Score
60 40

30
2.6 Emplacement Process
A process for emplacing waste arriving at the GDF has been developed. Flow charts have been
developed showing all of the stages between waste arriving at the site and being finally placed
underground. The process has been developed based on available information regarding the checking
and handling requirements for waste arriving at the site.
The amount of time required to emplace a package has also been examined. The timings and peak
package delivery rate will be used to calculate the number of handling facilities required.
2.6.1 Surface Handling Processes
2.6.1.1 Sea
The maximum number of stillages that can be carried on a ship at one time is 18. To accommodate the
amount of waste which is projected to arriving at Sizewell, 3 ships per week will be needed. Each
stillage will arrive preloaded on a wagon.
2.6.1.2 Unloading
When the ship arrives all of the stillages will be unloaded. The first 6 will be attached to a shunting
wagon and transported to the site. The process will be repeated with the rest of the packages as and
when the next batches are unloaded. The speed on this track will be limited for safety reasons
2.6.1.3 Site check in
Each container will be checked with the consignment documentation before being allowed to enter the
site.
There will be sufficient sidings to hold a 1 week supply of rail wagons.
2.6.1.4 Waste Package Transfer Facility
Prior to dispatch rigorous method of inspection will be employed to the packages to ensure the safety,
nature and quantity are recorded. Once the packages arrive on site they will be cross-checked with the
data obtained prior to dispatch. As the stillages enter the facility the lid will be removed to carry out
radiological measurements and a visual inspection. Each package will then have to be removed and
inspected - with measurements (dimensions and weight) of the packages taken - to confirm that no
damage has occurred in transit.
If there any discrepancies or damage to the packages they will be moved to one of two shielded
temporary storage areas and later moved to be the maintenance facility for repair or repackaging. It is
essential that an automated recovery unit is incorporated in the design so that in the event of any
damage no human involvement is needed.
2.6.1.5 Drift Tunnel
The waste packages will be loaded onto a drift wagon to be transported underground for emplacement.



31
2.6.2 Surface Facility Process Flow Chart


Figure 10- Process Flow chart
32
All waste
The drift connects all surface waste transfer facilities to the underground disposal facilities. The entrance to the drift
will consist of a building where operational personnel and drift wagons containing waste packages are located prior
to being transported underground. Additionally, the drift will serve for air ventilation intake as well as exportation of
liquid effluent.
2.6.3 Underground Handling Processes (Nuclear Decomissioning Authority, 2010)























LLW
LLW packages would be off-
loaded from the drift wagons by
an overhead crane and
transferred to the LLW
temporary storage area. Before
the number of packages in
temporary storage reaches
capacity, the waste packages are
relocated to create space and
allow additional waste from
above ground to be received. At
this time, LLW packages are
transferred to the vault for
disposal. The 4m x 2m
containers are stacked in arrays
one wide and three tall inside
the vault. Emplacement begins
at the rear end of the vault using
an electric powered forklift and
progressively makes its way
back towards the entrance. A
forklift garage will be located
near the entrance of each vault
for disposal and will be used to
store the vehicle when not in
use as well as being used as a
maintenance area.

ILW
ILW packages would be off-
loaded from the drift wagons by
an overhead crane and
transported to the inlet cell for
processing and monitoring before
being transferred to the disposal
vault. At the inlet cell waste
packages will either be sent to the
buffer store or onto the inlet cell
processing line. Here waste
packages enter the containment
booth for monitoring. Once the
waste packages are checked they
are transported onto a bogie to
the entrance of the vault. At the
entrance to the vault an overhead
crane emplaces each waste
package in stacks of three wide
and five high. Nearby the
entrance to the disposal tunnel
there is a separated area
designated for the maintenance of
transfer bogie’s and overhead
cranes used for the emplacement
of ILW. The maintenance
support area will feature a
decontamination zone and
monitoring area.
HLW/SF
HLW and SF canisters will be
transported underground in a
specialised ‘disposal canister
transport container’, known as a
DCTC. The DCTC is transported to a
transfer hall before being transferred
to the disposal tunnel reception area.
At the transfer hall shock absorbers,
used to prevent damage to the canister
during the descent, are removed from
the DCTC. The HLW/SF canisters are
then removed from the DCTC behind
shielded doors within the reception
area. Operators inspect the canister
for any signs of damage from the
reception area using CCTV
equipment installed within the
shielded area between the reception
area and the entrance to the disposal
tunnel. Once confirmation of no signs
of damage to the canister has been
received, it is then transferred onto a
trolley for disposal in the tunnel.
During this phase, the DCTC is
returned to the transfer hall for
monitoring and decontamination (if
necessary) before being sent back to
the surface for subsequent delivery.
The canister is then laid horizontally
upon a pre-placed bentonite block
within the disposal tunnel. A mobile
bentonite hopper containing pre-
compacted bentonite pellets backfills
the tunnel. This process is repeated at
3m separations for the emplacement
of each HLW/SF canister.
Additional support facilities
The following support facilities will be found in the vicinity of the LLW/ILW
area to check levels of contamination to groundwater:
 Effluent receipt/dispatch cell – To collect liquid effluent arising from
active areas.
 Sampling laboratory - To check for concentrations of radioactivity in
collected groundwater.
33
2.7 Detailed design
2.7.1 Surface Facility
The conceptual design of the surface facilities was developed into a final layout for the site during the
operational phase of the GDF. It is envisaged that buildings such as administration, health monitoring
and training will be of a standard commercial design. The waste handling building is, however, a
unique building type specific to the GDF. A scheme design of the waste handling buildings was also
developed. Construction issues are also examined.
2.7.1.1 Operational Site Layout
An operational site layout (Fig.11 – Drawing No. 02/03) was developed for the surface facilities. This
represents the configuration of the site during the process of waste emplacement.

























Drift
Transport
Maintenance
Management
Center
Excavated
Material
Storage
Rock
Crusher
Fire
and
Rescue
Administration
Plant
Storage
and
Maintenance
Construction
Management
Effluent
Treatment
Plant
Visitors
Center
Staff
Carpark
Training
Center
Medical
Center
HGV
PARK
Buffer
Material
Handling
Plant
ILW Transfer
Station 2
HLW Transfer
Station
ILW
Transfer
Station 1
To
Road
Improvements
Drift
Tunnel
Drift
Tunnel
Package
Maintenance
Top of Bund
+20m AoD
Vertical
Shaft Exits
Top of Bund +10m
AoD
Top of
Bund
+10m
AoD
Administration
Construction Facilities
Drift Tunnel Entrances
Process Management
Waste Handling Facilities
Repair & Maintenance Facilities
Drift Train Routes
Train Routes
Bund
Site Road
Security Perimeter
Site Boundary
Material Conveyor
Guard Tower
Vertical Shaft Exits
35
The site is separated into waste handling, construction and administrative support facility areas. Three
road and two rail access points into the site are provided. One road and one rail access point are
specifically for the reception of transporters carrying waste. The waste handling facilities are screened
from the surrounding area, and the rest of the site, by a series of bunds. A large 1.6km bund running
west-east to the north of the site will also provide flood protection to the entire GDF surface site and
the Sizewell C nuclear power station site.
It was found during the detailed design phase that the surface facilities will require a smaller area of
land than originally estimated. The land to the west of the site, which is not utilised, will provide a
buffer zone within the security perimeter. This land will also be landscaped to minimise the visual
impact of the surface facilities.
2.7.1.2 Construction Phase Site Layout
A layout has been developed for the site during the initial construction period (Appendix O –
Drawings) when the drift tunnels and surface facilities will be constructed. Land directly to the south
of the site is to be utilised during the construction of Sizewell C. The initial construction period of the
GDF will commence after the completion of Sizewell C and it is hoped that the use of this
construction area can be extended to the construction of the GDF. Once the initial construction period
is complete this area of land will be returned to its original condition, as is currently intended once
Sizewell C is complete (British Energy, 2008).
2.7.1.3 Waste Reception and Handling Facilities
Three waste reception and handling facilities are provided (Appendix O – Drawing No. 02/04 and
02/05). Two of the facilities will handle LLW and ILW. It was felt necessary to separate the HLW
handling facility due to the increased risks associated with handling HLW.
Each facility is divided into a number of 9 meter wide lanes (fig 12 – sketch of section). Each waste
handling facility also has a separate lane for the over packing of damaged waste packages.
Each lane is serviced by an overhead crane with a safe working load of 80 tonnes. The crane is
supported by 6 meter high reinforced concrete walls running parallel to the lane. The walls will serve
the dual purpose of providing shielding to the lane. A lightweight steel structure will be provided to
enclose waste handling lanes.
The lightweight steel structure will be designed to be easily demountable. This will enable external
crane access to the waste handling lane in the event of a mechanical breakdown or handling incident
within the lane.
Local borehole records indicate a 3-meter thick layer of peat beneath the site). In light of the
significant quantity of spoil already generated by the construction of the GDF it was not deemed
reasonable to generate further spoil by removing the peat from the entire site. A piled foundation
solution was developed to transfer the building loading to the more competent sand strata at depth.
2.7.1.4 Port
A port providing berthing for four waste transport ships is to be constructed (Appendix O – Drawings).
The port comprises two standard length piers extending 125 meters from the coast. Rail tracks have
been provided on both of the piers with the intention of utilising a roll on roll off loading and
unloading. The roll on roll off unloading method was selected, over the use of a crane system, since it
will minimise the risk associated with unloading and also reduce the visual impact of the port facility.
The port is to be used for the entire project lifecycle of the GDF. To ensure robustness a solid pier
structure with gravity retaining walls was selected.
36
2.7.2 Underground Facilities
A detailed design of the underground facility was developed based on the conceptual design of site D
shown in Appendix M.
The detailed design (Fig 12) illustrates that the underground facility is separated into two sections:
The high level waste and spent fuel area to the left of the drawing and the ILW and LLW area to the
right of the drawing. The reason for the large difference in surface area between the two different
sections is because high level and spent fuel are disposed of in individual canisters and a minimum
spacing of 3m between each canister is required. The section storing the ILW and LLW has a smaller
surface area as the packages will get stacked with no separation requirement.
There is a 600m separation between the HLW/Spent fuel area and the ILW/LLW area. This is a
requirement set by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.
There are two drift tunnels in this underground facility. One drift tunnel will be used for construction
to transport construction materials and equipment down to the underground facility and the second
drift tunnel will be used for transferring waste underground. Both drift tunnels are located in between
the ILW/LLW storage area and HLW/Spent fuel storage area (label 15 and 16 on plan drawing).
One vertical access shaft will enable the transfer of personnel down to the underground facility which
is located centrally between the two disposal areas. There is a maintenance support facility for ILW
and LLW that will ensure the maintenance of the mechanical/support equipment used to transfer
waste package to their storage area. There is one vertical shaft for ventilation intake between the two
disposal areas and one at the end of the HLW disposal area.
Throughout the HLW disposal area, there are staff ‘safe rooms’ in the event of emergencies. This is a
safety measure that complies with the risk assessment proposed control measure on fire. These rooms
will be a place of safe refuge and contain survival equipment.
The shape of the Geological Disposal facility has been chosen to maximize the use of space as well to
have a clear separation between the HLW/Spent fuel area and the ILW/LLW area.
Dimensions of the cross sectional size of each type of tunnel was initially assumed based upon figures
given in the NDA geological disposal facility report. These were then used to calculate the length of
the disposal tunnels, transport tunnels and disposal vaults (Appendix R). It was then possible to design
the layout of the facility. The total volume of spoil produced from underground excavations was then
calculated (Appendix P).
2.7.2.1 Underground Facility detailed design
The underground facility detailed design is presented in (fig 12- Drawing No. 03/01).










4890 m
800 m
800 m
5900 m
600 m
800 m
HLW/SF
Deposition Area 1
HLW/SF
Deposition Area 2
HLW/SF
Deposition Area 3
HLW/SF
Deposition Area 4
HLW/SF
Deposition Area 5
HLW/SF
Deposition Area 6
100 m
100 m
5820 m
1 2 3 4 5 6
Detail A
Underground Facilities Layout
Detail B
9
9
9
10
11
12
10
13
14
15
16
7
8
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
24
23 23 23 23
23 23 23
Key
1 LLW Deposition Area 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
LLW Deposition Area 2
ILW Deposition Area 1
ILW Deposition Area 2
ILW Deposition Area 3
ILW Deposition Area 4
Drift Tunnel Entrance 1
Drift Tunnel Entrance 2
9
HLW/ SF Transfer Halls
10Inlet Cell/ Buffer Store/
Processing Line
11Effluent Reciept/ Dispatch
area and sampling lab
12Maintenance Support Facility
13Forklift Garage
14LLW temporary storage area
15
Drift Tunnel 1 Surface
Entrance
16Drift Tunnel 2 Surface
Entrance
17Drift Tunnel 1
18Drift Tunnel 2
19
HLW/SF Emplacement
Tunnel
20HLW/SF Transport Tunnel
21LLW/ILW Emplacement Vault
22LLW/ILW Transport Tunnel
23Staff Safe room in case of fire
24Access / Ventilation Shaft
38
2.7.3 Construction of the Underground Facilities and Backfilling
Tunnelling and underground excavation are high risk activities and therefore require robust safety
management arrangements throughout the length of the project. Project leaders will therefore
establish plans and co-ordinate activities according to the most recent Construction Design
Management and Nuclear Installations Inspectorate Regulations.
2.7.3.1 Excavation methods
Subsurface facilities are to be constructed by a combination of two methods of excavation which
include drilling and blasting as well as using tunnel boring machines. The choice of excavation
method depends primarily upon tunnel length, the speed of construction and the associated cost.
Tunnel boring machines generally have a high capital cost, however as they are able to excavate a
greater volume of material than the traditional drill and blast method the cost per metre of tunnel
boring machines is less. Consequently it is more cost efficient to use tunnel boring machines to
excavate longer tunnels and more economical to excavate shorter tunnels by drill and blast. Therefore
the underground transport tunnels and disposal vaults will be constructed using tunnel boring
machines and the vertical shafts and drift tunnels will be excavated by drill and blast (Kolymbas,
2005).
2.7.3.2 Construction Process
According to the 2010 NDA geological disposal facility design report, access to the underground
facilities is estimated to continue up to 10 years before being able to accept nuclear waste for disposal
from the surface. Construction of the underground facilities would begin with the excavation of the
vertical shafts and drift tunnels. Upon completion of the drift tunnels a rail system will be installed in
order to deliver construction materials underground for further excavation. At a depth of
approximately 500m below the ground surface the main underground transport tunnels would be
excavated with tunnel boring machines. Transport tunnels, disposal vaults and all support facilities in
the vicinity of the ILW/LLW area will be constructed first. Following the completion of construction
in this area, emplacement of waste packages will take place whilst excavation of the HLW/SF
transport tunnels and disposal tunnels transpires simultaneously. At this point during the construction
and emplacement of the waste, one drift tunnel will transport construction materials in/out of the
facility whilst the second drift tunnel is used to transport ILW/LLW waste packages for disposal.
Once support services for the HLW/SF area have been constructed, emplacement of HLW and SF
canisters will begin whilst the on-going construction of the HLW/SF part of the facility takes place.
Cross-sectional profiles of all waste disposal tunnels can be found in Appendix O (Drawing No.
03/03). The design of the vertical shafts and drift tunnels are based upon those determined by Nagra -
the French Agency for the Disposal of Nuclear Waste. The vertical shafts have a diameter of 8m and
extend 500m deep into the Earth, whereas the drift tunnels have a diameter of 5.5m wide and a total
length approximately 3.3km long. During the drilling and blasting of the vertical shafts and drift
tunnels, strict control measures will be maintained to ensure minimal damage is caused to the
surrounding rock. Rock support will be used throughout to prevent ground movement and minimise
the excavated disturbed zone by providing rock bolts, steel meshing and a surface of shotcrete. The
design of the excavation will ensure as far as is reasonably practicable, that tunnels require minimal
maintenance. The vertical shafts and upper 300m of each of the drift tunnels will be supported by a
hydrostatic lining and nominal concrete lining to prevent the ingress of water. Although the influx of
groundwater into low strength sedimentary rock is low, at depths of 500m, flow into open tunnels
fluctuates due to the artificial high hydraulic gradient. Adequate ventilation and drainage will be
designed to prevent deterioration to the hydrostatic and concrete lining that may result over time.
2.7.3.3 Backfilling
Disposal vaults/tunnels, transport tunnels and underground infrastructure will be progressively
backfilled upon the storage of waste packages. Backfilling will take place in modules/banks of
disposal vaults/tunnels. For each of the ILW/LLW and HLW/SF parts of the underground layout,
39
there are 6 modules/banks of disposal tunnels/vaults (Section 2.7.2.1). Only after all the disposal
tunnels/vaults have been filled with waste packages for a particular module, will backfilling begin.
Storing and backfilling waste in this way acts as a safe measure so that waste can be easily retrieved if
necessary before final disposal. ILW/LLW vaults will be backfilled and sealed with cementitious
grout and HLW/SF disposal tunnels will be backfilled with pre-compacted bentonite pellets. The
process of closure involves local and peripheral backfilling. Local backfill involves filling the space
around and in the immediate vicinity of waste packages; peripheral backfill involves filling the void
between the waste stacks and the walls of the disposal vaults. Upon the completion of tunnel
backfilling, it is to be determined whether the vertical shafts, transport tunnels and drift tunnels will
be mass backfilled. It is assumed, according to the NDA geological disposal report, mass backfilling
will comprise of approximately 70% sand (crushed rock spoil) and 30% bentonite. (Nuclear
Decomissioning Authority, 2010).
2.7.3.4 Spoil Management
The excavation of the underground facilities will result in the production of 11,150,000 m
3
of spoil
(Appendix P). A plan for the management of the excavated spoil has been developed (table.11) and
the volumes of spoil that are to be disposed of by the various methods was calculated (Appendix Q).
Where possible the spoil is to be utilised during the construction of the surface earthworks. Spoil will
also be utilised for the construction of flood defences that have been proposed to the north of the
Minsmere nature reserve (Environment Agency, 2009).

Disposal Route Volume (m
3
) Percentage of Total
Volume
Construction of Bunds 2,269,500 20.4%
Construction of Port 211,799 1.9%
Management of tidal flood risk at Minsmere site. 300,000 (1) 2.7%
To be recycled as backfill 5,575,000 50.0%
Disposed of off Site 2,793,701 25.0%
Table 11 - Spoil Management Strategy
Note(1): Approximately 25% of the excavated spoil will be disposed of through the construction of the surface facilities and
a local flood defence scheme. It is anticipated that 50% of all of the material excavated will be used as backfill once the
packages have been emplaced



2.8 Method Statement
The following table will provide a brief description of the work that needs to be undertaken for the construction of the geological disposal facility together with the associated construction hazards. Each hazard will be given a hazard
reference number that will be used in the risk assessment section in section 2.9. The hazards for the construction of the surface facility buildings will not be included as these are standard building construction hazards that are not specific
to the construction of the geological disposal facility. The hazards related to the direct construction of the underground area and the access drifts tunnels will be explored in this table and referred to in the risk assessment form.

Item of Work Brief description of Work Brief Description of principal hazards Hazard ref. no
Support Facilities/ Setting out
1. Site Clearance and Leveling
2. Set up site; Install site fencing and security gates to keep members of public away from the site + mark out dirt roads
3. Mark out rock disposal area on site
4. Build parking space for construction vehicles and workers personal vehicles
5. Build Power Generator
6. Build Equipment Storage Area
7. Build Office Building
8. Build Food Services Building
9. Build Firehouse
10. Build Medical building
11. Build Decontamination building
Waste Facilities
12. Excavation of Drift Tunnel for ILW


 Compromise to ventilation
 Vehicle collision with personnel underground
 Fumes (drill & Blast)
 Fire
 Tunnel collapse during operation/
 Tunnel collapse during construction
 Electrocution
 Groundwater flooding tunnels during excavation
 Loss of power in underground area
 Radioactive contamination of personnel



 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
13. Excavation of 3 vertical shafts for Ventilation
14. Excavate vault/disposal area for ILW
15. Excavation of Drift Tunnel for HLW
16. Excavation of 3 vertical shafts for Ventilation
17. Excavate vault/disposal area for HLW
18. Build ILW checking facility
19. Build HLW checking facility
20. Building Waste logging facility
Table 12- Method Statement


41


2.9 Risk Assessment
The method statement in the previous section identified 10 principal hazards with their respective hazard reference number. This section will create a risk assessment on each hazard identifying their likelihood and severity. Control
measures will be put forward for each for the hazards in order to mitigate the risks associated with each hazard.

Table 13- Risk Assessment (Nuclear Decomissioning Authority, 2010)

The Likelihood and Severity are multiplied together to produce a risk product. The risk product gives a good indication of the overall risk associated with each of the hazards. It is important that the hazards with the greatest risk product
are given close attention to and the proposed control measures are taken into account by the contractors on site in order to have a safe construction of this geological disposal facility.

Hazard

LIKELIHOOD (L) SEVERITY (S)
Risk Product
(RP = L x S)
Proposed Control Measures
1. Compromise to ventilation 1.5 5 7.5
Ensure contractors on site are aware of evacuation plans and procedures. Have clearly marked out
emergency routes underground that lead to fresh air bases where fresh oxygen supply can be found.

Ensure that the ventilation systems have regular maintenance and monitoring

Ensure ventilation systems have a built-in alarm system that can notify the workers in case the
ventilation systems have been compromised
2. Vehicles collision with personnel underground 2 5 10
Maximise the use of conveyor belts underground where possible

Ensure that workers are equipped with high visibility jacket and the lighting is sufficient underground
3. Fumes (Drill & Blast) 3.5 3 10.5
Ensure that the geology in understood before drilling into the rock

Ensure emergency routes to ‘safe rooms’ are clearly marked out
4. Fire

4 5 20
Ensure surface fire station is operating at all times and local fire suppression equipment are also
present underground

Have clearly marked out emergency routes that lead to ‘safe room’ which are fire proof
Ensure any point underground has two different emergency routes so that if one route is blocked due
to fire, the other route can be used.

Ensure alarm monitoring system is in operation and working. Have a fire drill regularly to keep
contractors aware of the emergency procedures

5. Tunnel Collapse during excavation/ rock fall 4 3 12
Ensure all workers underground are equipped with hard hats

Ensure emergency routes are clearly marked out for trapped personnel

Ensure small medical facility is present underground to assist any injured worker
6. Tunnel Collapse during operation/ rock fall 1.5 4.5 6.75
7. Electrocution 2 4 8
Ensure that all equipment to be used underground have passed the safety checks

Ensure workers are briefed about the risks of handling electric equipment when in contact with water
8. Groundwater flooding tunnels during excavation 4 4.5 18
Ensure there is appropriate drainage and channelling on surface around drift
9. Loss of Power in underground area 3.5 2.5 8.75
Have a back-up power generator on site that can provide the required electricity for lighting and
mechanical conveyor belts underground

10. Radioactive contamination of personnel 1 5 5
Ensure that the worker is treated immediately in decontamination rooms that are location on the
surface
3. Prequalification Exercise: Post-Closure

3.1 Post Closure Management
Due to the long lasting nature of the waste to be stored at the GDF it is necessary to consider the
management of the facility for a period of thousands of years after the emplacement of the final
packages of waste. The post closure management of the facility has been split in to two sections; near
term post closure and long-term post closure.
Near term post closure considers potential uses for the site after the emplacement of the final
packages of waste when the surface facilities are no longer required. In the context of this project near
term refers to a period of approximately 150 years after the emplacement of the final waste packages.
The long-term post closure management strategy considers the management of the facility for the
entire time period that the disposed waste is potentially hazardous. Considering the safe management
of the facility over such an extended time period is outside of the normal scope of human
consideration and must be given special attention.

3.2 Near Term Post Closure
After the emplacement of the final packages of waste within the GDF the surface facilities will no
longer be needed. Developing a strategy for the management of the site after the closure of the
underground facilities ensures the long-term sustainability of the project.
3.2.1 Considered Near Term Post Closure Uses
Following the closure of the underground facilities a use for the surface facilities must be identified.
Whilst makers and information centres, that form part of the extreme long term management strategy,
will be present on the site it will still be possible to utilise the vast majority of the site. A number of
options are presented for the post closure use of the surface facility land.
In the operational and decommissioning stage the GDF facilities will be managed by the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority through the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely Directorate (Nuclear
Decomissioning Authority, 2012) . Post closure MRWS will no longer be required to manage the site
and an alternative management institution must be identified.













43
Considered Use Management
Institution
Advantages Disadvantages
Centre for Nuclear
Education
Government The history of the site would
enhance the status of such a
facility

Such a facility may not be
economically viable in the long
term
Much of the operational
infrastructure would become
redundant
Rail and Locomotive
Maintenance Facility
Private Company Sidings and locomotive
maintenance facilities will already
exist on the site from the
operational phase

Site has a direct link to the
national rail network
Sizewell is not in a prime location
to service the majority of the
national rail network


Cargo Management
Facility
Private Company Presence of large rail sidings and
a port would minimise the need
for additional infrastructure
The basic need for the
management of cargo will exist
for at least the foreseeable future
Such a facility may have
significant negative environmental
impacts on the local area


Ministry of Defence
Depot
Government Infrastructure will be in place to
meet the needs of a depot facility
An MoD presence on the site will
provide enhanced security to the
drift tunnel entrances
The MoD or a similar
organisation under government
control will exist for at least the
foreseeable future
Such a facility may have negative
environmental impacts on the
local area
Nature Reserve Government/Government
Regulated Company
Minsmere level nature reserve is
directly adjacent to the site

Would be a positive influence on
the local environment
Considerable alterations
necessitated during the
construction of the GDF would
make the establishment of a nature
reserve challenging
Infrastructure developed for the
GDF would become redundant
Table 14- Considered Near Term Post Closure Uses
44

3.2.2 Recommended Near Term Post Closure Use
The recommended near term post closure use is a military depot. It was felt that the infrastructure
serving the site specifically suited the construction of a depot. It was also felt that a government
institution, such as the MoD is likely to survive in the long term where a private business may not.

3.3 Long Term Post Closure Management Approaches
A number of approaches that address the issue of managing the GDF over the many thousands of
years the waste remains hazardous have been suggested. An assessment of each of the methods is
made and a recommendation for the long-term management strategy at the Sizewell GDF is made.
3.3.1 Passive Institutional Control
The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico researched the best way to pass on the knowledge and
dangers of the repository in the long run. “The primary purpose of the PICs programme is to provide a
permanent record that identifies the location of the repository and its dangers.” (Department of Energy,
2004). PICs generally involve the construction of multiple monuments, information centres and
markers around the site.
Designing the inscription to be intelligible by people in the far distant future is a major challenge. An
analogous situation is the attempts that were made to design a plaque, intelligible to an alien species,
during the NASA pioneer project (National Space Administration, 2007). Despite the ingenuity of
these messages there are still numerous criticisms regarding the ability of a totally alien race, or
indeed distant future generation, to interpret them (Bellows, 2005).
3.3.2 Active Institutional Control
Active Institution Control is seen as a ‘short term concept’. These are methods that need to be
implemented by personnel such as good archives and security (fencing, gates, and guards). Active
institutional controls have been adopted as the preferred method after the closure of the Onkalo
repository in Finland (Nolin, 1993).
A brief inspection of history would suggest that most institution, such a; kingdoms, sheikdoms and
democracies, do not last for extremely extended periods of time. It is therefore easy to question the
sustainability of active institutional controls in the long run. It has, however been argued (Tonn, 2001)
that it is possible to design an institution that will last for the required time period.
3.3.3 Total Abandonment
With accidental discovery being unlikely abandoning the facility, to be lost, offers security via
secrecy. If all traces of the repository up to 50 meters below ground level were removed it is difficult
to envisage a scenario that would lead to the accidental discovery of the facility.
A major criticism of the total abandonment approach is the apparent paradox of “always remembering
to forget” (Into Eternity , 2010). Allowing knowledge of the repository to be lost also raises issues
regarding our generation’s responsibility to those in the future (Vial, Unknown).
3.3.4 The Communities Legacy
The community legacy concept is based on adding value to local communities which forms a long
lasting a durable bond between the community and the repository (Nuclear Energy Agency, 2007).
The concept of the “rolling future” where subsequent generations take responsibility for the waste
repository, modernising and updating the records and markers is considered to be a sustainable option
by the (Agency, Nuclear Energy, 2008). The community’s legacy is restricted to the unequal
timeframes of the local cultures lifespan compared to the half-lives of the nuclear waste.
45
Figure 14- Visitor Centre
Figure 13- Marker Stone
3.3.5 Adopted Approaches
A combined approach of Active and Passive Institutional Control will be adopted for the long term
protection of the Sizewell GDF. The active institution controlling the GDF is recommended to be
formed on the community legacy basis. The specific implementation of this approach is described.
Total abandonment was considered neither practical nor ethically responsible for the long term
management of a GDF. It was also felt that by effectively hiding such a complex and obviously man
made facility it may even increase the tenacity of future explorers to open the GDF.
3.3.6 Adopted Passive Institutional Controls
A large flat circular marker 1m thick, made up of a combination of stones, will be placed over the
entrances of the drift tunnel. It has been shown that the use of a combination of granite and basalt with
deep engravings between 15-20mm and 1-3mm thick offer the best long term durability (Hart, 2000).
The design to be placed in the marker (fig 13) is intended to convey the message that the waste is
dangerous and useless and not to be approached. Numerous languages will also be used on the marker
with extra space for additional inscriptions to be made in the future if necessary.











The visitor centre (fig 14) will also serve as a permanent monument. The construction of the visitor
centre will be extremely robust utilizing monolithic stone construction where possible. The
architecture of the visitor center will aim to convey the message of danger.


46
3.3.7 Adopted Active Institutional Controls
Active Institutional Control measures including active monitoring of the site area and good archives
will be enforced as a ‘short term concept’ subject to constant review. The institution tasked with the
long term management of the site is to be formed around the local community with the aim of
maximizing the involvement of those stakeholders with the largest interest.

A major responsibility of the organisation tasked with the management of the facility in the extreme
long term will be the stewardship of archives. A dedicated archive team will maintain the quality of
the records with a major update being performed at least once every generation to ensure the records
remain legible and compatible with the technology, languages and knowledge of the time.

Physical copies of all of the documents associated with the GDF were considered to be the best media
for long term information transfer. It is suggested that all records are printed on to so called
“permanent paper”. This low acid paper, similar to the ancient Egyptian papyrus, is an accepted
method for the long-term preservation of documents (Brown, 2005).

Methods of storing the information electronically were considered. Hard disks with a design life of a
million years have been proposed (Clery, 2012) but any electronic solution was ruled out due to the
pace at which data formats have become obsolete in recent times.

3.4 Backfilling
UK regulation states emplacement of waste without intent to retrieve it at a later time.
Retrieveability lies at the heart of the issues of whether to backfill. The key aspects of the decision
making are; the public concerns, the safety and safeguards, long term monitoring costs, and finally the
ethical issues.
3.4.1 Public Opinion
It is important that decision making is all done by the experts. The public must have a say in the level
of retrievability, and the consent of the local community is essential. The public opinion is difficult to
predict, at one moment they never want to see the waste again, now they’re scared of irreversible
decisions and favour the retrievable option.
3.4.2 Ethics
Ethics deals with the trade-off between “minimising future generations burden or maximising future
choices.” (McCombie, 1999) The ethical argument against retrievability believes we should be
responsible for our generation’s actions and not pass on the burden, risks, and cost associated with
dealing with the waste. The ethical argument for retrievability argues that future generations should
have freedom of choice to act. Whether advances in technology could be a blessing or a burden.
(Thunberg, 1999)
3.4.3 Costs
If the repository is left with a retrievable option, and therefore monitoring, the financial and non-
financial costs have to be considered. Although a lot of monitoring can be done using acoustics and
satellites personnel monitoring is always going to be needed, and the cost of the health aspects must
be accounted for. It is not only the health of the personnel’s that need to be considered. When leaving
the repository open for retrievability there are risks associated with ground water etc. Who is liable for
these costs? These financial costs can’t be passed onto future generations.
47
2012-
2052
3.4.4 Safety and Safeguards
Safety is the most important aspect. The safety of future generations must be secure. The health risks
in the future must be less than what they are today. Without backfilling these cannot be guaranteed.
Arguably we cannot we cannot predict geological changes or technical advances, so how can we
predict future generations safest option?
When dealing with safeguards, the retrievability of the waste for re-use, most of the waste is ILW and
“the French National Assessment Agency CNE has suggested there could be little or no justification
for development of a retrievable capability” as ILW has a lack of re-use value. (Richardson, 1999)
Spent fuel has reuse value but the potential risk that it will be used for weaponry. Although this risk
has been reduced with the dilution of spent fuels - dismissing its capability to be used in weaponry –
leaving it capable in the making of ceramics and alloys.

After taking into account all aspects, this proposal suggests that after a short monitoring period of 50
years the repository will be backfilled using Nirex soft grout and the entrance will be plugged with a
10 m plug preventing human intrusion. The safety of the waste is secured by preventing bines and
surface water entering the repository. It still has the possibility to excavate and retrieve at great
financial cost. These costs don’t outweigh the health costs of monitoring personals, the possible cost
of the risks of leaving it open, or the financial burden that leaving it open will cause future generations.
(International Atomic Energy Agency, 1999).

3.5 Project Timeline
A timeframe for the project has been developed (fig.15). A period of approximately 125 years will be
required to transport all of the waste produced at Sellafield to the GDF (Section 2.3.4.3). Allowing for
final design and consent it will be approximately 40 years before the first packages of waste can be
emplaced within the facility. A further 10 years will be required to construct the drift tunnels and first
disposal vaults. During the 125 year transport and emplacement period construction of the
underground disposal vaults and tunnels and backfilling of those which have been filled will be on
going. A final closure period of 10 years is provided for the closure and decommissioning of the
facility.
It was not deemed feasible to begin waste emplacement prior to the complete construction of the
underground facilities. This decision was made on the basis that to construct all of the underground
facilities would take a time period in the order of 100 years with a design and consent lead time of
approximately 40 years. It was felt that the risk of continuing to store waste at interim storage
facilities for the next 140 years far outweighed the slightly increased risks associated with
constructing and emplacing waste concurrently.


Figure 15-Project Timeline
Design
Waste Emplacement
Construction
2197-
2222
2052 - 2197
Contingency
48
Appendix A
























Östhammar, Sweden - Low relief
coastal crystalline rocks
Olkiluoto, Finland - Low relief coastal
crystalline rocks
Topography of Osthammar, Sweden (Smythe, 2010)
Topography of Olkiluoto, Finland (Smythe, 2010)
49
Appendix B

Exclusion area zone map (British Geological Survey, 2010) (British Geological Survey, 2010)
50
Appendix C





























Borehole records for the Romney Marsh Area (British Geological Society and Lake R.D,
1987)
51
Appendix D
























Topography of the United Kingdom
(WINDPOWER, Unknown)
52
Appendix E

53

Appendix F



54

55




56
Appendix G
Waste location spreadsheet






























LLW 150000 13100
ILW 365000 183000
HLW 61500 8790
LLW ILW HLW LLW ILW HLW LLW ILW HLW SF UraniumPlutonium LLW ILW HLW SF Uranium Plutonium
Amersham No 210 525 0 0.33 0.23 0.00 281 329 0 0 0 0 491 854 0 0 0 0
AWE Aldermaston Yes 2,150 8,280 0 3.35 3.69 0.00 2,869 5,184 0 0 0 0 5,019 13,464 0 0 0 0
BAESM Barrow-in-Furness No 2 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0
Berkeley Yes 1,540 1,060 0 2.40 0.47 0.00 2,055 664 0 0 0 0 3,595 1,724 0 0 0 0
Bradwell Yes 2,580 477 0 4.02 0.21 0.00 3,443 299 0 0 0 0 6,023 776 0 0 0 0
Calder Hall Yes 2,500 472 0 3.89 0.21 0.00 3,336 296 0 0 0 0 5,836 768 0 0 0 0
Capenhurst Yes 2,640 6 0 4.11 0.00 0.00 3,523 4 0 0 0 0 6,163 10 0 0 0 0
Cardiff No 212 419 0 0.33 0.19 0.00 283 263 0 0 0 0 495 682 0 0 0 0
Chaplecross Yes 7,080 415 0 11.02 0.18 0.00 9,447 260 0 0 0 0 16,527 675 0 0 0 0
HMNB Clyde No 40 0 0 0.06 0.00 0.00 54 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 0 0 0 0
Culham No 458 101 0 0.71 0.04 0.00 612 64 0 0 0 0 1,070 165 0 0 0 0
Defence Estates No 3 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0
RRMPOL Derby No 101 0 0 0.16 0.00 0.00 135 0 0 0 0 0 236 0 0 0 0 0
HMNB Devonport No 85 17 0 0.13 0.01 0.00 114 11 0 0 0 0 199 28 0 0 0 0
DSDC North Donnington No 7 0 0 0.01 0.00 0.00 10 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0
Dounreay Yes 4,860 12,900 0 7.56 5.75 0.00 6,485 8,076 0 0 0 0 11,345 20,976 0 0 0 0
Dungeness Yes 2,740 1,199 0 4.26 0.53 0.00 3,656 751 0 0 0 0 6,396 1,950 0 0 0 0
Eskmeals No 6 0 0 0.01 0.00 0.00 9 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0
Hartlepool Yes 746 421 0 1.16 0.19 0.00 996 264 0 0 0 0 1,742 685 0 0 0 0
Harwell Yes 884 2,541 0 1.38 1.13 0.00 1,180 1,591 0 0 0 0 2,064 4,132 0 0 0 0
Heysham Yes 1,739 984 0 2.71 0.44 0.00 2,321 616 0 0 0 0 4,060 1,600 0 0 0 0
Hinkley Point Yes 3,647 1,422 0 5.68 0.63 0.00 4,867 891 0 0 0 0 8,514 2,313 0 0 0 0
Hunterston Yes 3,656 2,137 0 5.69 0.95 0.00 4,879 1,338 0 0 0 0 8,535 3,475 0 0 0 0
LLWR Drigg Yes 1,160 438 0 1.81 0.20 0.00 1,548 275 0 0 0 0 2,708 713 0 0 0 0
NRTE Vulcan No 2 8 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 6 0 0 0 0 5 14 0 0 0 0
Oldbury Yes 1,660 632 0 2.58 0.28 0.00 2,215 396 0 0 0 0 3,875 1,028 0 0 0 0
HMNB Portsmouth No 1 1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0
Rosyth&Devonport No 146 187 0 0.23 0.08 0.00 195 118 0 0 0 0 341 305 0 0 0 0
Rosyth Royal Dockyard No 11 6 0 0.02 0.00 0.00 15 4 0 0 0 0 26 10 0 0 0 0
Sellafield Yes 12,344 181,000 6,770 19.21 80.63 100.00 16,471 113,302 54,730 13,100 183,000 8,790 28,815 294,302 61,500 13,100 183,000 8,790
Sizewell Yes 2,579 1,477 0 4.01 0.66 0.00 3,442 925 0 0 0 0 6,021 2,402 0 0 0 0
Springfields No 83 0 0 0.13 0.00 0.00 111 0 0 0 0 0 194 0 0 0 0 0
Torness Yes 1,020 404 0 1.59 0.18 0.00 1,361 253 0 0 0 0 2,381 657 0 0 0 0
Trawsfynydd Yes 3,030 865 0 4.72 0.39 0.00 4,043 542 0 0 0 0 7,073 1,407 0 0 0 0
Windscale Yes 280 4,070 0 0.44 1.81 0.00 374 2,548 0 0 0 0 654 6,618 0 0 0 0
Winfrith Yes 547 1,160 0 0.85 0.52 0.00 730 727 0 0 0 0 1,277 1,887 0 0 0 0
Wylfa Yes 2,980 757 0 4.64 0.34 0.00 3,977 474 0 0 0 0 6,957 1,231 0 0 0 0
MWP (various) No 530 100 0 0.82 0.04 0.00 708 63 0 0 0 0 1,238 163 0 0 0 0
Total Packages at Each Site to Be Transported to GDF
Plutonium
Spent Fuel
Uranium
TOTAL NUMBER OF PACKAGES
Site
Identified as
Major Waste
Producing
Site?
UKWRI 2010 Specified
Number of Packages at
Each Site
% Of Current Total Held
at Each Site
Packages Not Included in UKWRI Distributed in
Proportion to the Currernt Distribution
58
Appendix H


59

60

61
Appendix I


62

63

64
Appendix J


65
Appendix K

66



67
Appendix L

Design Option
1 – On Proposed Site 1 (Alex)
Description
Location of waste handling area to the east of the site to minimise distance between handling areas and port.
Maximum separation of operations area from waste handling area to maximise safety to staff. Waste handling
areas are maximum possible distance from local residents. Use of tree border to minimise visual impact of the site.
Spoil utilised for flood defences and the constriction of the port.
Design Criterion Max Score Awarded Justification
Provide infrastructure with the capacity to
deliver up to 2500 waste packages per year
5 5 Links to sea rail and road network.
Provide eight 240 meter rail sidings 5 5 Space provided for the required number of sidings
Provide flood defence to the site 5 4 Relatively short flood defence embankment required.
Minimum level of site is 9m AOD therefore naturally
above flood level.
Minimise the exposure of local residents to
waste packages
10 8 Connection to the national road and rail networks
does not cause the waste to come into proximity to
local residents. Connection to the port avoids
residential properties.
Multiple emergency access routes to the site 5 3 Two access routes by road that could be utilised in the
event of an emergency.
How well is the visual impact of the surface
facilities mitigated through the proposed site
layout and landscape design
10 7 Site is situated away from Leiston. Limited number of
properties in close proximity to the site. Use of trees
to minimise visual impact.
How serious are any impacts the proposed
development has on areas of land that have
statutory protection
5 3 Flood defence may have an impact on the flood
characteristics of the Minsmere Level SSSI
Maximise opportunities to maintain and
improve local biodiversity
5 2 Planting of trees to serve dual purpose of minimising
visual impact and promoting bio diversity.
Ensure access to local community services is
unaffected during and after construction
5 2 Construction of link to Leiston rail spur will cause long
term disruption to a number of local roads and
properties.
Maximise the onsite use/reuse of excavated
spoil
5 4 Use of spoil for embankment constriction. Use of spoil
for the constriction of the port.
Minimise the overall cost of the project to
achieve value for money
10 7 Will be able to utilise area already designated for
Sizewell C construction facilities. Link to rail network
will require significant investment.
Total Score
70 50
Principle Advantages of Option: Location of site away from Leiston reduces the impact of the facility on local residents. Proximity to the
coast improves transport link to the port. Proximity to Sizewell C construction area may provide a prepared area for the storage of plant
and equipment during the constriction phase.
Principle Disadvantages of Option: Difficult to link site to existing rail spur without impacting on local road network.
Recommendations  Investigate how the site can be linked to the rail network with minimal disruption to the
surrounding area.
 Location offers the greatest potential for minimising the visual impact of the facility on
the local population.
68


Design Option 3 – On proposed site 2 (Josh)
Description
Waste handling area situated to the east of the site for proximity to the port. Drift tunnels are separate
to the waste handling areas to enable construction staff to enter the shafts without exposure to the
waste. Link to Leiston rail spur will cause minimum disruption to local services and roads. No
specific landscaping to minimise visual impact of facility on Leiston. Flood protection require along
the entire north and east boundary of the site.
Design Criterion Max Score Awarded Justification
Provide infrastructure with the capacity to deliver
up to 2500 waste packages per year
5 3 Insufficient space provided for rail sidings
minimising the potential for the use of rail to
deliver waste to site. Link to port is optimised
increasing the throughput of waste delivered by
sea.
Provide eight 240 meter rail sidings 5 1 Space for rail sidings compromised by location of
rail entrance to site.
Provide flood defence to the site 5 4 Flood embankments to be provided to the entire
north edge of the site. No significant cut operation
is to be performed to the site so level of site will
naturally be above flood plain
Minimise the exposure of local residents to waste
packages
10 5 Site is close to Leiston. Link to port will cause waste
to be transported in close proximity to Sizewell.
Multiple emergency access routes to the site 5 3 Two access routes by road that could be utilised in
the event of an emergency.
How well is the visual impact of the surface
facilities mitigated through the proposed site
layout and landscape design
10 5 Office buildings will border the edge of the site
visible from Leiston. It is envisaged that the office
buildings will have a lower visual impact than the
waste handling and construction facilities.
How serious are any impacts the proposed
development has on areas of land that have
statutory protection
5 3 Flood defence may have an impact on the flood
characteristics of the Sizewell Belts SSSI
Maximise opportunities to maintain and improve
local biodiversity
5 0 No specific features envisaged to provide a
significant boost to local biodiversity
Ensure access to local community services is
unaffected during and after construction
5 3 Construction access may cause intermittent
disruption to Lover’s Lane
Maximise the onsite use/reuse of excavated spoil 5 4 Use of spoil for embankment constriction. Use of
spoil for the constriction of the port.
Minimise the overall cost of the project to achieve
value for money
10 8 Links to rail network will be short minimising cost.
All other cost comparable to other proposed
designs.
Total Score
70 42
Principle Advantages of Option: Location of waste handling area is in close proximity to the port and the existing Sizewell A and B site.
Construction area is positioned centrally to the site improving construction efficiency.
Principle Disadvantages of Option: Lack of space for rail sidings. Proximity of site to Leiston. Lack of landscaping to minimise the visual
appearance of the site.
Recommendations  Investigate an alternative inbound rail access location to provide sufficient space for the
required number of sidings.
 Improve mitigation to visual impact.
69



Design Option 4 – On Site 2 (James)
Description
Surface facilities sited on potential site 2. Waste handling checking and transfer facilities situated as
far as possible from populous. Peat deposits removed from site prior to construction and entire site
founded below the site line of Leiston with embankments rising towards Lovers Lane. Tunnel
proposed to shield Sizewell from transport link between port and site.
Design Criterion Max Score Awarded Justification
Provide infrastructure with the capacity to deliver
up to 2500 waste packages per year
5 5 Links provided to road, sea and rail. Rail sidings and
HGV parking situated within the site.
Provide eight 240 meter rail sidings 5 5 Space for rail sidings provided within the site
Provide flood defence to the site 5 2 Flood embankments provided to defend the site
but site will be founded at 0m AOD increasing the
risk of flooding.
Minimise the exposure of local residents to waste
packages
10 7 Site is founded below the line of Leiston. Tunnel
provided to prevent exposure to residents of
Sizewell.
Multiple emergency access routes to the site 5 4 Three access routes are provided to different areas
of the site.
How well is the visual impact of the surface
facilities mitigated through the proposed site
layout and landscape design
10 9 Site is situated below the site line of the residents
of Leiston and will therefore have a minimal impact
on existing views. Embankments provided to east of
the site will impact on views from Sizewell Belts
How serious are any impacts the proposed
development has on areas of land that have
statutory protection
5 2 Flood defences ma have an impact on the Sizewell
Belts SSSI
Maximise opportunities to maintain and improve
local biodiversity
5 3 Cutting of existing peat will cause significant impact
on local biodiversity. No specific measures are
proposed to improve the local biodiversity.
Ensure access to local community services is
unaffected during and after construction
5 2 Construction of bridge to carry lovers land will close
the road for an extended period of time.
Maximise the onsite use/reuse of excavated spoil 5 3 Large quantities of spoil will be generated when the
existing peat is cut away from the site.
Minimise the overall cost of the project to achieve
value for money
10 5 Cutting of site to 0m AOD will incur significant cost.
Construction of tunnel to shield Sizewell is an
additional cost
Total Score
70 47
Principle Advantages of Option: Minimal visual impact since the site is founded below the sightline of Leiston.
Principle Disadvantages of Option: Cost associated with the cutting of the site. Fundamental proximity of the site to Leiston increasing the
risk level to a larger number of local residents. Flood defence embankments become critical.
Recommendations  Investigate the risk associated with flooding of the site.
70
Appendix M
Conceptual Design Underground Facility Drawings



74
Appendix N




Design Option A
Description Main transport tunnels are situated in perpendicular directions to one another and meet
at the centre. Deposition tunnels for HLW and SF extend at a 45° angle from the North-
South transport tunnel. Deposition tunnels for ILW branch at a 90° perpendicular angle
from the East-West transport tunnel. Access shafts are centrally located whereas drift
tunnel entrances are located at the ends of the East and West transport tunnels.
Design Criterion Max Score Awarded
Provide separate ILW/HLW emplacement vaults at
a distance 500m apart.
5 2.5
Provide adequate area for locating essential
services, including: Package Transfer ,
Reception/Marshalling area; Buffer Store, Spoil
bunker, Forklift garage etc.
5 3.5
Maximise space usage of area 5 2
Minimise construction complexities associated
with facility design
5 2.5
Minimise excavation of spoil from construction 5 1
Minimise overall length of transport and service
tunnels
5 1
Maximise length of deposition tunnels 5 3
Ensure second drift tunnel can undergo
construction/excavation whilst waste transfer can
simultaneously be in operation.
5 4
Two strategically located drift tunnels 5 3.5
Potential for future expansion 5 1.5
Creativity in design 10 2.5
Total Score
60 27

75









Design Option B
Description Main transport tunnels extend from the centre in six equidistance directions. To maximise
space available deposition tunnels extend at a 45° angle each to the main transport
tunnel. The three upper branches would be used for HLW storage, the third branch in the
clockwise direction would be used for SF and the remaining two branches for ILW storage.
Design Criterion Max Score Awarded
Provide separate ILW/HLW emplacement vaults at
a distance 500m apart.
5 1.5
Provide adequate area for locating essential
services, including: Package Transfer ,
Reception/Marshalling area; Buffer Store, Spoil
bunker, Forklift garage etc.
5 1
Maximise space usage of area 5 1.5
Minimise construction complexities associated
with facility design
5 1
Minimise excavation of spoil from construction 5 0.5
Minimise overall length of transport and service
tunnels
5 1
Maximise length of deposition tunnels 5 1
Ensure second drift tunnel can undergo
construction/excavation whilst waste transfer can
simultaneously be in operation. take place
simultaneously
5 2
Provide two strategically located drift tunnels 5 1
Potential for future expansion 5 4
Creativity in design 10 8.5
Total Score
60 23

76










Design Option C
Description The main East-West transport tunnel of the facility connects drift tunnels 1 and 2. ILW
would be stored on the East branch and HLW & SF stored on the West branch, separated
500m apart. The main tunnels for the two zones of waste face away from one another at
60° to the East-West transport tunnel.
Design Criterion Max Score Awarded
Provide separate ILW/HLW emplacement vaults at
a distance 500m apart.
5 2.5
Provide adequate area for locating essential
services, including: Package Transfer ,
Reception/Marshalling area; Buffer Store, Spoil
bunker, Forklift garage etc.
5 4
Maximise space usage of area 5 1
Minimise construction complexities associated
with facility design
5 1
Minimise excavation of spoil from construction 5 2
Minimise overall length of transport and service
tunnels
5 2.5
Maximise length of deposition tunnels 5 1.5
Ensure second drift tunnel can undergo
construction/excavation whilst waste transfer can
simultaneously be in operation. take place
simultaneously
5 4
Provide two strategically located drift tunnels 5 4
Potential for future expansion 5 2
Creativity in design 10 5
Total Score
60 29.5

77









Design Option E
Description The design layout is based upon the radioactive symbol. The three main transport tunnels
extend from the centre point of the facility whilst deposition tunnels branch
perpendicularly to the main tunnels. Construction of the facility involves a complex
operation as the deposition tunnels differ in length. Two of the three deposition tunnels
would be utilised for HLW and SF storage and one tunnel for the storage of ILW.
Design Criterion Max Score Awarded
Provide separate ILW/HLW emplacement vaults at
a distance 500m apart.
5 3
Provide adequate area for locating essential
services, including: Package Transfer ,
Reception/Marshalling area; Buffer Store, Spoil
bunker, Forklift garage etc.
5 2
Maximise space usage of area 5 1.5
Minimise construction complexities associated
with facility design
5 2.5
Minimise excavation of spoil from construction 5 2.5
Minimise overall length of transport and service
tunnels
5 4
Maximise length of deposition tunnels 5 2.5
Ensure second drift tunnel can undergo
construction/excavation whilst waste transfer can
simultaneously be in operation. take place
simultaneously
5 3.5
Provide two strategically located drift tunnels 5 4
Potential for future expansion 5 3
Creativity in design 10 5
Total Score
60 33.5

78










Design Option F
Description The facility is separated by two main transport tunnels 500m apart. The separated areas
contain different types of waste. Transport tunnels for each zone extend in perpendicular
directions from the main transport tunnel.
Design Criterion Max Score Awarded
Provide separate ILW/HLW emplacement vaults at
a distance 500m apart.
5 2.5
Provide adequate area for locating essential
services, including: Package Transfer ,
Reception/Marshalling area; Buffer Store, Spoil
bunker, Forklift garage etc.
5 1.5
Maximise space usage of area 5 5
Minimise construction complexities associated
with facility design
5 4
Minimise excavation of spoil from construction 5 4
Minimise overall length of transport and service
tunnels
5 3
Maximise length of deposition tunnels 5 5
Ensure second drift tunnel can undergo
construction/excavation whilst waste transfer can
simultaneously be in operation. take place
simultaneously
5 2.5
Provide two strategically located drift tunnels 5 3
Potential for future expansion 5 3.5
Creativity in design 10 2
Total Score
60 36

79
Appendix O
Design Drawings

3 3
4 4
2
1
1
2
Location 1 - Section 1-1
End of Site
Ground Level/m
(ASL)
13.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
End of Site
8.0
Location 1 - Section 2-2
End of Site
Ground Level/m
(ASL)
13.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
End of Site
Location 1 - Section 3-3
End of Site
Ground Level/m
(ASL)
13.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
End of Site
Location 1 - Section 4-4
End of Site
Ground Level/m
(ASL)
13.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
End of Site
Key
Existing ground level
Removed
Removed
Auxiliary
Facilities
1 1
2
2
3
3
4
4
Ground Level/m
(ASL)
Location 2 - Section 1-1
17.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
End of Site
15.0
End of Site
Ground Level/m
(ASL)
Location 2 - Section 2-2
End of Site
17.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
2.5
End of Site
Location 2 - Section 3-3
End of Site End of Site
Ground Level/m
(ASL)
17.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
Ground Level/m
(ASL)
Location 2 - Section 4-4
End of Site End of Site
17.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
2.5
Key
Existing ground level
3 3
4 4
2
1
1
2
Location 1 - Section 1-1
End of Site
Ground Level/m
(ASL)
13.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
End of Site
Slope 1 in 250
Location 1 - Section 2-2
End of Site
Ground Level/m
(ASL)
13.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
End of Site
Slope 1 in 250
Slope 1 in 2
Location 1 - Section 3-3
End of Site
Ground Level/m
(ASL)
13.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
End of Site
Slope 1 in 50
Slope 1 in 2
Location 1 - Section 4-4
End of Site
Ground Level/m
(ASL)
13.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
End of Site
Slope 1 in 50
Slope 1 in 2
Key
Bund
Proposed ground Level
Existing ground level
Notes
Proposed ground level at
approximately 10.2m throughout site,
apart from bung for flood protection
Excavated Material
Storage
Rock
Crusher
Fire and
Rescue
Plant Storage and Maintenance
Construction
Management
Effluent Treatment
Plant
HGV PARK
Buffer
Material
Handling
Plant
To Road
Improvements
Drift
Tunnel
Drift
Tunnel
Temporary
construction
area
Level
Crossing
Key
Sizewell C
Boundary
SSSI Boundary
Road Links to
Facility
Key
Sizewell C
Boundary
SSSI Boundary
Road Links to
Facility
Road Links within
Facility
Construction Facilities
Drift Tunnels
Rail Links for Construction
Materials
Crane, 80t SWL
Inspection Zone
Shield Walls 400thk.
&Crane Support
Waste Destined for
Emplacement
Management
Zone
Shielded Sliding Door
Damaged Package
Facility Transport
Shielded Cell &
Repackaging Area
HGV Unloading
Bay
A
A
Steel Portal Frame &Cladding
65m
7
0
m
Inspection Zone
Shielded Cell &
Repackaging Area
Railway
Shielded
Sliding Door
Key
ILW (1) Transfer Facility
Plan
Management
Zone
Crane, 80t SWL
Inspection Zone
Shield Walls 400thk.
&Crane Support
Waste Destined for
Emplacement
Shielded Sliding Door
Damaged Package Facility Transport
Shielded Cell &
Repackaging Area
Steel Portal Frame &Cladding
65m
5
5
m
Management
Zone
Crane, 80t SWL
Inspection Zone
Shield Walls 400thk.
&Crane Support
Waste Destined for
Emplacement
Shielded Sliding Door
Damaged Package Facility Transport
Shielded Cell &
Repackaging Area
Steel Portal Frame &Cladding
65m
4
5
m
Crane, 80t SWL
Shield Walls 400thk. &
Crane Support
Package on Wagon
Light-Weight Steel Portal Framed Shell
Crane track
Notes:
- Design slab for Blanket Load of 115kN/m²
- Piles to be 900mmØ =40m deep
- Concrete Specification: 60mm min. cover; C45/55 Strength;
w/c ratio 0.35; Cement content 360kg/m³
5
m
10m
1
1
m
ILW Transfer Facility
Section A-A
(Scale 1:150)
ILW (2) Transfer Facility
Plan (Scale 1:650)
HLW Transfer Facility
Plan (Scale 1:750)
Construction Facilities
Process Management
Waste Handling Facilities
Bund
Key
Original Ground Level
Rock Core With Impermeable Membrane
2
:1
G
ra
d
ie
n
t
50m
1
0
m
Operating Layout Section
(Scale 1:2000)
10m Bund Section
(Scale 1:300)
9.6 m
40 m
9.6 m
100 m
5.6 m
100 m
LLW / ILW Storage Vault LLW / ILW Storage Vault
LLW / ILW Storage Vault LLW / ILW Storage Vault
Detail A - LLW / ILW Storage Area Dimensions
Processing Area for Waste
Effluent Receipt and Sampling Area
Transport Tunnel
Ventilation Outlet
Packages placed by
free steered stacker
truck
0.3 mof Sprayed Concrete
0.9 m 0.9 m 0.9 m 0.9 m
0.95 m
Longitudinal Section Through ILW / LLW Storage Vault
Scale 1:200
Waste
Package
Waste
Package
Waste
Package
9.00 m
Internal Tunnel Width
9.6 m
External Tunnel Width
4.0 m
Across Packages
4.9 m
Across Wastestack
11.5 m
External Tunnel
Height
10.9 m
Internal Tunnel
Height
2.94 m
6.66 m
1.3 m
Cross-section Through LLW Storage Vault
9.00 m
Internal Tunnel Width
9.6 m
External Tunnel Width
6.06 m
Across Packages
6.51 m
Across Wastestack
11.5 m
External Tunnel
Height
10.9 m
Internal Tunnel
Height
3.475 m
6.125 m
1.3 m
Cross-section Through ILW Storage Vault
SWL 80 Tonnes
40 m
2.5 m
2.5 m
Transport Tunnel
800 m
5.6 m
HLW / SF Disposal Tunnel
HLW / SF Disposal Tunnel
HLW/SF Reception Area
HLW/SF Reception Area
20 m
Detail B - HLW / SF Storage Area Dimensions
3.00 mspacing
Longitudinal Section through HLW Disposal Tunnel
Scale 1:80
Backfill
Canister Emplacement
Trolley
Cross-Section through HLW Disposal Tunnel
Scale 1:80
2.5 m Diameter
Notes
HLW canister Length 2m,
diameter 0.94m
SF canister length 4.6m,
diameter 1.05m
3m spacing for both HLW
and SF
Bentonite used as backfill
Ground Level
Underground Facility
Surface Facility
Drift Tunnel Arrangement - East-West View
Turning Area - No
Gradient
Drift Tunnel - Gradient 1 in 6
1500m 300m
Turning Area - No
Gradient
Ground Level
Underground Facility
Surface Facility
Drift Tunnel Arrangement - North-South View
Drift Tunnel - Gradient 1 in 6 Drift Tunnel - Gradient 1 in 6
Turning Area - No
Gradient
Turning Area - No
Gradient
100m 100m
250m
250m
Drift Tunnel Layout - Plan View
Surface Facility
Drift Tunnel 1
Drift Tunnel 2
Key
Drift Tunnel
Site
Port
Link with National
Rail Network
Road Improvements
Necessary
Level
Crossing
Level
Crossing
Key
Sizewell C
Boundary
SSSI Boundary
Surface Facilities
Boundary
Road Links to
Facility
Rail Links to
Facility
Flood Embankment
Railway Link from
Port to Site
Control Building
Access Path Access Path
Level Crossing
170.0 m
135.0 m
B
e
r
t
h

F
o
r

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t

S
h
i
p
B
e
r
t
h

F
o
r

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t

S
h
i
p
B
e
r
t
h

F
o
r

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t

S
h
i
p
B
e
r
t
h

F
o
r

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t

S
h
i
p
Piers
Beach
Sea
50.0 m
Key
Rail Links to
Facility
Access Paths
Port Boundary
93
Appendix P


94
Appendix Q


95

96
Appendix R

97

98

99



Appendix - Project Implementation Plan
Group Coherency
No Confidence Mechanism
If at any point a group member feels the teamleader does not have the
confidence of the group they may call a vote of no confidence.
To enact a vote of no confidence the group member must send an anonymous
email to the group leader prior to a group meeting raising the issue of lost
confidence. A confidential ballot will be held during the group meeting. The
group leader may not participate in a no confidence ballot. Abstentions froma no
confidence vote will not be permitted.
If the majority of the group find they have lost confidence in the group leader a
newgroup leader will be elected with the group leader taking over the duties of
the replacement group member. This mechanismmay not be enacted later than
14 days prior to the final submission of the project to avoid undue disruption to
the final hand in process.
Conflict Resolution
Where disagreement exists within the group, regarding a project decision, the
conflict will be resolved by means of a ballot called by the group leader. Where a
ballot results in no consensus being reached the group leader will make the final
decision.
Meetings
Frequency
Two weekly teammeetings, at 12 o’clock on Monday and 12 o’clock on Friday,
are to be held. Where a group member is unable to attend arranged meetings
this is to be communicated, via text and email, to both the group leader and
secretary prior to the meeting. Absences will be noted by the secretary along
with any appropriate mitigation.
Interimmeetings may be called by any member of the group to raise urgent
issues. None attendance of interimmeetings will be acceptable and without
prejudice.
Minutes
Minutes are to be taken by the group secretary and circulated to all group
members no more than 36 hours after the meeting concludes.
Progress Monitoring and Deadlines
A broad project schedule will detail the deadlines for the major aspects of the
project. The group leader will be ultimately responsible for ensuring that these
deadlines are met. Packages of work will be assigned to group members at the
Monday meeting for the week ahead. Once a group member has accepted a
package of work they will submit that package of work, in either draft or final
form, to the; group leader, editor and secretary before the Friday meeting. It is
the responsibility of the secretary to monitor the submission of work and
communicate none submission to the group leader.
The group leader will be responsible for monitoring the fairness of the packages
of work attributed to group members. Where a group member feels the work
share is not equal it is the responsibility of the group member to raise this with
the teamleader. Where a group member feels their progress has been hindered
by the actions of another group member this is to be raised immediately with the
teamleader.
Final Report
Editors Powers
Formatting of the final report is to be the sole responsibility of the editor. The
editor is to have ultimate control of the final layout, wording and appearance of
the report. The editor must seek approval fromthe group member responsible
for a package of work if they feel a change is required to the content of the work.
Referencing
It is the ultimate responsibility of the editor to ensure that the final report is
correctly referenced. Retrospective referencing of entire packages of work after
they have been submitted to the editor will not be acceptable.
Figures and Drawings
Any figures or drawings included in the main body of text are to be printed at
actual size prior to the final submission to check clarity.
Printing and Binding
It is the responsibility of the editor to ensure that the final report is correctly
formatted in line with the requirements of the printers.
The cost of the printing and binding will be shared equally amongst the group.
THE FINAL REPORT IS TO BE PRINTED NO LATER THAN 24 HOURS PRIOR TO
THE SUBMISSION DEADLINE.
Design Documentation
CAD Drawings
The production of the final set of CAD drawings are to be the sole responsibility
of the Design Documentation Supervisor. Where assistance is required in
completing the work load the Design Documentation Supervisor may offer a
package of work to be completed by another group member.
Drop Box
All documents that are collected as research for the project are to be placed in an
online drop box folder. Files referenced in the main report are also to be placed
in the drop box whenever possible. The structure of the folder is to be managed
by the Design Documentation Supervisor.
TASK
Role Allocation All D
Initial Research All D
Geological Analysis - Cumbria RS D
Geological Analysis - Kent JK D
Socio-Economic Analysis - Cumbria AC D
Socio-Economic Analysis - Kent JW D
Precedent Study of GDF Facilities Abroad BF D
Identification of Other Potential Sites HN D
Develop Map Showing Location of Existing Waste Locations HN D
Further Research of Other Potential Locations BF, RS, AC D
Synthesis of Collected Information Into Decision Making System JK D
Further Research into Transport Links JW D
Write-up of Information Collected for PQE1 ALL D
SITE SELECTION DECISION ALL D
Editing and Completion of PQE1 Report Section RS D
FINALISATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF PQE1 All D
Set-up of AutoCAD Format and Site Maps JW D
Specific Siting within Sizewell AC+JK D
More detailed geological information of Sizewell JK D
Transport and Logistics Study for Delivery of Existing Waste JW,JK D
Develop Design Brief For PQE2 All D
FINALISATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF DESIGN BRIEF D
Analysis of Constraints and Opportunities for Identified Sites JK, AC D
Generation of Conceptual Layouts for Sites All D
Waste Transport to GDF JW+JK D
Associated infrastructure and services AC+JK
Analysis of Conceptual Design Proposals and Selection of Most Promising JK,BF
ACCEPTANCE OF CONCEPTUAL PROPOSALS All
Detailed design: Surface facilities JK D
Deatiled design: Underground access BF D
Detailed design: Waste ransport and reception AC+JK D
Detailed design: Asscoiated infrastructure and services JK
Construction plans: Surface facilities JW D
Construction plans: Underground access JW D
Construction plans: Waste ransport and reception AC D
Construction plans: Asscoiated infrastructure and services JW D
Generation of Risk Matrix RS D
Generation of Construction Schedule RS D
Editing and Completion of PQE2 Report Section RS D
FINALISATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF PQE2 All D
PQE3 Initial Research Into Proposed Methods HN D
Development and Analysis of Proposals for PQE3 HN D
PQE3 Final Proposal Decision Making Analysis HN D
FINALISATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF PQE3 Proposal All D
Editing and Completion of PQE3 Section of Report RS+JK D
FINALISATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF PQE3 All D
Final Editing and Checking of Report RS D
FINALISATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETE REPORT All D
Printing of Completed Report JK D
Oral Presentation Development JW D
PROJECT SCHEDULE - UPDATED 4th December 2012
Week 6 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11
104
Appendix - Meeting Minutes



01/10/2012 13:00
Department of Civil
engineering cafe
Meeting called by
Type of meeting
Secretary
Timekeeper
Attendees
Absentees Honor Newman
Agenda Topics
time COMMUNICATION AND ORGANISATION
discussion It was discussed that work needs to be submitted
to all in the same format to save on editing
hours. Also sharing of information and work
needs to be more consistent so it was discussed
that a team dropbox would be a set up. A work
schedule needs to be drafted.
conclusion
Action items Personal responsibility Deadlines
Formatting Romain Sidoti
Dropbox Alex Carr
Work Schedule James Kingsman 12/10/2012
time SITE SELECTION
discussion It was discussed that the political factors for
Kent and Cumbria need to be researched and
written up. Another topic of conversation was
the other factors of comparisons of site
locations, and how they would clearly be shown
and compared. Whether in a table or a matrix. A
Map of current waste disposal sites, potential
sites and waste production location. Further drop
pin weighted site comparison map can be added
after the matrix or table of site options has been
done
conclusion It was decided a table would be used for site
comparison. Also a written section on why the
chosen site was selected
Action items Personal responsibility Deadlines
Write up on
Kent Joshua Wood 5/1012
Write up on
Cumbria Alex Carr 5/1012
Site maps Honor Newman 12/10/2012
Section on site
selection /10/2012
Honor Newman
Joshua Wood, Alex Carr, Ben Fadida, James Kingman, Romain Sidoti,
James Kingsman stood in for Honor Newman
Meeting 2 Section 1 Tasks
35 minutes
James Kingman
Honor Newman
105





time SITE DESIGN
discussion It was discussed that a site would be designed by
collaborating designs from selected designs by
other nations.
conclusion
Review of information gathered of other nations
designs, so a preliminary design can be chosen.
Action items Personal responsibility Deadlines
Preliminary
design review Ben Fadida 05/10/2012
time OTHER TOPICS
discussion Project implementation plan needs to be set.
Also a pre-qualification exercise (PQE1)1set to
be information ready and formatted soon.
Another topic discussed was the organisation of
AutoCAD.
Action items Personal responsibility Deadlines
Project
implementation
plan James Kingsman 05/10/2012
Organisation of
AutoCAD
drawings Joshua Wood
PQE1 Finished 12/10/2012
PQE1 Formatted 19/10/2012
CAD tempates Joshua Wood
Secretary Date of approval
Team leader Date of approval
106





05/10/2012 13:00
Department of Civil
engineering group study
room
Meeting called by
Type of meeting
Secretary
Timekeeper
Attendees
Absentees
Agenda Topics
time CRITERIA FOR WEIGHTING
discussion A brief group discussion on what the weighting
criteria would be and which factors thus far
would have higher weightings. Who would do
the weightings and how was decided.
conclusion A matrix format was decided with weightings to
be approved by the entire team
Action items Personal responsibility Deadlines
Matrix James Kingsman
time PROJECT GANT CHART
discussion The project gant chart produced by James was
reviewed and approved. The timetable was
discussed with Ben taking charge do PEQ2, and
PEQ3 to be edited and finished by 17th
November 2012
conclusion
Action items Personal responsibility Deadlines
PEQ2 Leader, Start
thinking about
development of
brief, design concept
schedule, and
breaking up into
tasks
Ben Fadida
Honor Newman
Joshua Wood, Alex Carr, Ben Fadida, James Kingman, Romain Sidoti, Honor Newman
Meeting 3 Section 1 progression meeting
40 minutes
James Kingman
Honor Newman
107





time FORMATTING
discussion What format to write the text up and what
referencing technique to be used were discussed
conclusion It was decided that the font would be Times new
Roman with main text at size 12, headings 16
and 14 for sub headings. A Harvard referencing
technique would be adopted by all.
Action items Personal responsibility Deadlines
time INDIVIDUAL TASK
discussion Sie problems and perks were discussed.
Everyone's progress was reviewed and where
they were going from there.
Action items Personal responsibility Deadlines
Geology Ben fadida, Romain Sidoti 12/10/2012
Social economics of
Cumbria Alex Carr 12/10/2012
Social economics of
Kent Joshua Wood 12/10/2012
Transport Honor Newman 12/10/2012
Alternate sites Honor Newman 12/10/2012
Site maps
Secretary Date of approval
Team leader Date of approval
108





15/10/2012 12:00
Department of Civil
engineering group study
room
Meeting called by
Type of meeting
Secretary
Timekeeper
Attendees
Absentees
Agenda Topics
time PEQ2 & 3
discussion This meeting was called upon to start on
sections peq2 and 3 and what level of design
would be needed. Topics discussed were
transport, security, sea levels, geology, design
drawings and matrix, soil corrosion, backfill,
and plans for site in the long run.
conclusion
Personal
Responsibility Action Item Deadlines
Alex Carr and James
Kingsman Specific location
Joshua Wood Download maps and templated for Auto CAD
???? Flood maps and look at rising sea levels
Ben Fadida PEQ2 Brief
Honor Newman Look into PEQ3
James Kingsman Geology of area
Romain Sidoti PEQ1 editting
Secretary Date of approval
Team leader Date of approval
Honor Newman
Joshua Wood, Alex Carr, Ben Fadida, James Kingman, Romain Sidoti, Honor Newman
Meeting 5 Section 1 progression meeting
60 minutes
James Kingman
Honor Newman
109





15/10/2012
Department of Civil
engineering cafe
Meeting called by
Type of meeting
Secretary
Timekeeper
Attendees
Absentees Ben Fadida
Agenda Topics
time COMMUNICATION AND ORGANISATION
discussion Further discussions on the
transport and the underground
design of PQE2.
Personal
Responsibility Action Item Deadlines
Alex Carr and James
Kingsman Specific location
Joshua Wood
Download maps and template for Auto
CAD
???? Flood maps and look at rising sea levels
Ben Fadida PEQ2 Brief
Honor Newman Look into PEQ3
Romain Sidoti PEQ1 editing
Honor Newman
Meeting 7 Progression meeting
15 minutes
James Kingman
Joshua Wood, Alex Carr, James Kingman, Romain Sidoti, Honor Newman
James Kingsman Geology of area
Honor Newman
110





19/10/2012
Department of Civil
engineering cafe
Meeting called by
Type of meeting
Secretary
Timekeeper
Attendees
Absentees
Agenda Topics
time
discussion This meeting was called
upon to discus the safest
way to transport the waste.
Rail, road and sea were all
discussed.
conclusion It was decided that sea was
the safest mode of
transport, with the
minimum risk of civilian
interference. A port would
need to be constructed to
deal with the amount of
waste arriving.
Action items Personal responsibility Deadlines
Evaluation of
transport links Joshua Wood 26/10/2012
Joshua Wood, Alex Carr, Ben Fadida, James Kingman, Romain Sidoti, Honor Newman
Transport links
Meeting 8 Transport
25 minutes
James Kingman
Honor Newman
Honor Newman
111




22/10/2012
Department of Civil
engineering cafe
Meeting called by
Type of meeting
Secretary
Timekeeper
Attendees
Absentees
Agenda Topics
time
discussion In this meeting the amount of waste
which is in surface storage facility
around the uk, how much waste will be
produced during the timeframe of
construction of the repository, and it was
discussed whether the repository could
take international waste.
conclusion
Action items Personal responsibility Deadlines
Amount of waste James Kingman 26/10/2012
Meeting 9 Waste Quantities
35 minutes
James Kingman
Honor Newman
Honor Newman
Joshua Wood, Alex Carr, Ben Fadida, James Kingman, Romain Sidoti, Honor Newman
Waste quantities
112




26/10/2012
Department of Civil
engineering cafe
Meeting called by
Type of meeting
Secretary
Timekeeper
Attendees
Absentees
Agenda Topics
time
discussion The surface facilities were
decided. The group split in 2
to establish the role of each
facility
conclusion
Action items Personal responsibility Deadlines
surface
facility
evaluation
James, Josh, Ben,
Honor
Meeting 10 Surface Facilities
120 minutes
James Kingman
Honor Newman
Honor Newman
Joshua Wood, Alex Carr, Ben Fadida, James Kingman, Romain Sidoti, Honor Newman
What surface facilities are needed
113




29/10/2012
Department of Civil
engineering cafe
Meeting called by
Type of meeting
Secretary
Timekeeper
Attendees
Absentees Romain Sidoti
Agenda Topics
time
discussion The transport process was
discussed as well as the process
of the waste once on site through
the surface facilities to
placement in the vaults.
conclusion
Action items Personal responsibility Deadlines
Transport Process Josh, James
Site Process Alex Carr
Meeting 11 Process of waste emplacement
45 minutes
James Kingman
Honor Newman
Honor Newman
Joshua Wood, Alex Carr, Ben Fadida, James Kingman, , Honor Newman
Process
114




Meeting 12 Surface facility Site Layout
02/11/2012
Department of Civil
engineering study room
Meeting called by James Kingman
Type of meeting
Secretary Honor Newman
Timekeeper Honor Newman
Attendees
Joshua Wood, Alex Carr, Ben Fadida, James Kingman, Romain Sidoti, Honor Newman
Absentees
Agenda Topics
time
discussion Locations of the facilities will
allow for a efficient placing of the
waste, so the layout was discussed.
The number of sidings was
discussed leaving sufficient space
for a stoped construction line.
conclusion
Action items Personal responsibility Deadlines
Site layout design
option Alex, Josh, Romain, James 16/11/2012
Site layout
40 minutes
115




Meeting 13 Construction of Underground Facility
05/11/2012
Department of Civil
engineering study room
Meeting called by James Kingman
Type of meeting
Secretary Honor Newman
Timekeeper Honor Newman
Attendees
Joshua Wood, Alex Carr, Ben
Fadida, James Kingman,
Romain Sidoti, Honor Newman
Absentees
Agenda Topics
time
discussion It was discussed what was
to be done with the
conclusion
It was decided some of the
spoils would be sold off as
backfill, Some would be
used in the construction of
the port and bund.
time Method of construction
discussion How it would be
constructed and how many
drifts would allow for
efficient construction and
placing of the waste
conclusion
It was concluded that
tunnel boring machines
and explosives would be
used. 2 drift tunnels would
be sufficient to allow for
efficient activity.
Action items Personal responsibility Deadlines
Look into
underground
construction Ben Fadida
45 minutes
Plan for the excavated material
116




09/11/2012
Department of Civil
engineering study
room
Meeting called by
Type of meeting
Secretary
Timekeeper
Attendees
Absentees
Agenda Topics
time
discussion It was already decided in a previous
meeting that sea was the favourable mode
of transport, but where waste is stored
inland road/ rail must be used. Rail is a
fairly safe mode of transporting the waste.
The rail line connecting the national rail to
the site was discussed. Deciding on a
location that avoid populated areas.
conclusion
time Road
discussion Transport by road was discussed.
conclusion It was decided it would be avoided where
possible, as there was a high risk of an
accident in close proximity to civilians.
Also some of the packages are too heavy
for road transportation
Action items Personal responsibility Deadlines
Transport report Joshua Woods & James Kingman
Meeting 14 Transport
35 minutes
James Kingman
Honor Newman
Honor Newman
Joshua Wood, Alex Carr, Ben Fadida, James Kingman, Romain Sidoti, Honor Newman
Rail
117




12/11/2012
Department of Civil
engineering study
room
Meeting called by
Type of meeting
Secretary
Timekeeper
Attendees
Absentees Alex Carr
Agenda Topics
time
discussion It was discussed
that different types
of waste require
different treatment
and storage
requirements
conclusion It was decided that
LLW would be
stacked 1 wide 3
tall. ILW would be
stacked 3 wide 5
tall. HLW would be
layed in a pre
placed bentonite
block.
Meeting 15 Process of Waste Emplacement
Joshua Wood, Ben Fadida, James Kingman, Romain Sidoti, Honor Newman
Different waste requirements
70 minutes
James Kingman
Honor Newman
Honor Newman
118




27/11/2012
Department of Civil
engineering cafe
Meeting called by
Type of meeting
Secretary
Timekeeper
Attendees
Absentees
Agenda Topics
time
discussion The drawings for
the surface and
underground were
checked by the
entire group. Any
errors were noted
for editing
conclusion
Action items Personal responsibility Deadlines
Surface Facility
drawing editing Alex Carr 30/11/2012
Editing of
Underground
facility drawings Joshua Wood 30/11/2012
time PQE Editing
discussion It was discussed
that PQE3 needed
further work
conclusion
Action items Personal responsibility Deadlines
PQE3 Re-work Honor Newman 29/11/2012
Drawings Check
Meeting 19
20 minutes
James Kingman
Honor Newman
Honor Newman
Joshua Wood, Alex Carr, Ben Fadida, James Kingman, Romain Sidoti, Honor Newman
119




30/11/2012
Department of Civil
engineering study
room
Meeting called by
Type of meeting
Secretary
Timekeeper
Attendees
Absentees
Agenda Topics
time
discussion Slides were added and the
presentation was briefly timed
conclusion
Action items Personal responsibility Deadlines
Presentation
Assembling Joshua Woods 01/12/2012
practice
deliverance of
speech Alex, Ben, James, Honor 03/12/2012
Presentation run through
Meeting 20 Presentation run through
60 minutes
James Kingman
Honor Newman
Honor Newman
Joshua Wood, Alex Carr, Ben Fadida, James Kingman, Romain Sidoti, Honor Newman
120




30/11/2012
Edward Boyle
Library Group Study
Zone , Level 8
Meeting called by
Type of meeting
Secretary
Timekeeper
Attendees
Absentees Joshua Wood
Agenda Topics
time
discussion Run through of
group presentation.
Any vital missing
points were added.
conclusion
Action items Personal responsibility Deadlines
Practice
presentation till
fluent
James, Honor,
Ben & Alex
Presentation Run Through
Meeting 21 Presentation run through
90 minutes
James Kingman
Honor Newman
Honor Newman
Alex Carr, Ben Fadida, James Kingman, Romain Sidoti, Honor Newman
121




30/11/2012
Edward Boyle Library Group
Study Zone , Level 8
Meeting called by
Type of meeting
Secretary
Timekeeper
Attendees
Absentees
Agenda Topics
time
discussion Layout, any
additional editing
were discussed.
Abstract was
written
conclusion
Action items Personal responsibility Deadlines
further editing Romain Sidoti
COMMUNICATION AND ORGANISATION
Meeting 22 Final Run Through of The Proposal
90 minutes
James Kingman
Honor Newman
Honor Newman
Alex Carr, Ben Fadida, James Kingman, Romain Sidoti, Honor Newman, Joshua Wood
122
Appendix – Full Brief

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

Works Cited
Agency, Nuclear Energy. (2008). Geological Disposal of Wastes: Records, Markers
and People.
Andra. (2010). The Presence of Andra in Meuse and Haute-Marne district.
BBC News. (2007, November 8). The Flood Threat to England and Wales. Retrieved
November 10, 2012, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7086224.stm
BBC News. (2012, April 18). Dungeness nuclear power plant reaches
decommissioning milestone. Retrieved October 10, 2012, from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-17741693
BBC News. (2012, September 20). Romney Marsh nuclear waste storage plant
rejected. Retrieved October 02, 2012, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
england-kent-19656382
Bellows, A. (2005). Nasa's messages to the great unknown. Retrieved September 27,
2012, from http://www.damninteresting.com/nasas-messages-to-the-great-
unknown/
British Energy. (2008). Proposed Nuclear Development at Sizewell.
British Geological Society. (1977). Hydrogeological Map of England and Wales,
Sheet 1, 1:625,000 [pdf]. Retrieved October 6, 2012, from
http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/viewer/viewer.html?url=scan:HydroMaps/18898614
British Geological Society and Lake R.D. (1987). Geology of the Country Around
Hastings and Dungeness: Memoir for 1:50,000 Geological Sheets 320 and
321 (England and Wales). London.
British Geological society. (Unknown). Seismicity and Earthquake hazards in the UK.
Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
http://www.quakes.bgs.ac.uk/hazard/Hazard_UK.htm
British Geological Survey. (2010). Initial geological unsuitability screening of west
Cumbria: figures 3-8 and 10-14 . pdf.
British Geological Survey. (2010). Managing radioactive waste safely: initial
geological unsuitability screening of West Cumbria. Nottingham: Keyworth.
Brown, P. (2005). Ancient Egypt provides key to storing nuclear heritage. Retrieved
November 27, 2012, from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/aug/09/energy.nuclearindustry
Clery, D. (2012). A Million year hard disk. Retrieved November 27, 2012, from
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/07/a-million-year-hard-disk.html
Cumbria Tourism. (Unknown). Economic Impact of Tourism - Visitor Volume and
Value 2011. Retrieved October 02, 2012, from
http://www.cumbriatourism.org/research/surveys-data.aspx
131
Department for Communities and Local Government. (2006). Summary of
Information on Coal for land-use and Planning Purposes (CR/06/114N) [pdf].
Retrieved October 2, 2012, from www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=1299
Department for Energy and Climate Change. (2012). Onshore Licensing Map [pdf].
Retrieved October 2, 2012, from http://og.decc.gov.uk/assets/og/data-
maps/maps/landfields-lics.pdf
Department for Environment Food and Rural affairs. (2008). A Framework for
Implementing Geological Disposal. Retrieved September 28, 2012, from
http://mrws.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/mrws/white-paper-final.pdf
Department of Energy. (2004). Permanent Markers Implementation plan.
Department of Energy and Climate Change. (2010). Appraisal of Sustainability: Site
Report for Sizewell .
Department of Energy and Climate Change. (2011a). The 2010 UK Radioactive
Waste Inventory: Main Report. London.
Department of Energy and Climate Change. (2011b). Radioactive Wastes in the UK:
The 2010 Estimate of Radioactive Waste for Geological Disposal. London.
Department of Energy and Climate Change. (2011b). Radioactive Wastes in the UK:
The 2010 Estimate of Radioactive Waste for Geological Disposal. London.
Department of Energy and Climate Change. (2011c). National Policy Statement for
Nuclear Power Generation (EN-6). London.
Department of Energy and Climate Change. (2012). New Nuclear. Retrieved
November 20, 2012, from
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/nuclear/new/new.asp
x
DigiMap. (2012). Digimap. Retrieved Ocotber 04, 2012, from
http://digimap.edina.ac.uk/digimap/home
EDF Energy. (2011). EU Stress Test.
English Nature. (Unknown). Natural Areas - 71 Romney Marshes [pdf]. Retrieved
October 7, 2012, from
http://www.naturalareas.naturalengland.org.uk/Science/natural/NA_Details.as
p?NA_ID=71&S=romney+marsh&R=0
Environment Agency. (2009). Planning a sustainable approach: Mismere flood risk
management study.
Environment Agency. (2010). Folkestone to Cliff End Flood and Erosion
Management Strategy: Approved Strategy Summary.
Environment Agency. (n.d.). Risk of Flooding from Rivers and Sea Interactive Map.
Retrieved September 29, 2012, from http://maps.environment-
agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?x=531500.0&y=181500.0&topic=floodm
132
ap&ep=map&scale=3&location=London,%20City%20of%20London&lang=_e
&layerGroups=default&textonly=off
Esri. (2010, February). Investigating the United Kingdom's geology using GIS.
Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
http://www.esri.com/news/arcwatch/0210/investigating-the-uk.html
Gallois, R. (2004). The Kimmeridge Clay: the most intensively studied formation in
Britain [Open University Journal, Vol. 25, Part2]. Retrieved October 2, 2012,
from http://rogov.zwz.ru/Gallois,2004_KImmeridge_clay.pdf
Google Earth. (2012). Google Earth. Retrieved October 01, 2012, from
http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en_uk/earth/index.html
Griffiths, R. (2012, May 16). Romney Marsh could become a site of nuclear waste
disposal. Retrieved October 02, 2012, from
http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/Romney-Marsh-site-nuclear-waste-disposal/story-
16097374-detail/story.html
Hart, J. (2000). Contractor Report Permanent Markers Monument Survey.
Harvey, F. (2012, May 22). Government announces big energy reforms in 20 years.
Retrieved November 20, 2012, from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/22/government-announces-
energy-reforms
International Atomic Energy Agency. (1999). Retrievability of high level waste and
spent nuclear fuel, Proceedings of an international seminar organized by the
Swedish National Council for Nuclear Waste.
International Atomic Energy Agency. (2001). Severity, probability and risk of
accidents during maritime transport of radioactive material.
International Maritime Organisation. (2011). INF Code. Retrieved November 15,
2012, from
http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Safety/Cargoes/Pages/IrradiatedNuclearFuel.as
px
Jackson, D. I., Jackson, A. A., Evans, D., Wingfield, R. T., Barnes, R. P., & Arthur, M.
J. (1995). United Kingdom offshore regional report: the geology of the Irish
Sea. London.
Kärnbränslehantering, S. (2009). Final repository for spent fuel in Forsmark – basis
for decision and reasons for site selection.
Kolymbas, D. (2005). Tunelling and Tunnel Mechanics: A Rational Approach to
Tunnelling.
Maddrell, R., Osmond, B., & Li, b. (1994). Review of Some 30 Years of Beach
Replenishment at Dungeness Nuclear Power Station [pdf]. Retrieved
September 28, 2012, from
http://journals.tdl.org/icce/index.php/icce/article/viewArticle/5200
133
Madsen, M. (Writer). (2010). Into Eternity [Motion Picture].
May, V., & Hansom. (2003). Coastal Geomorphology of Great Britain, Geological
Conservation Review Series No. 28. pdf, Peterborough.
McCombie, C. (1999). Retrievability of high level waste and spent nuclear fuel,
Proceedings of an international seminar organized by the Swedish National
Council for Nuclear Waste.
National Geographic. (2012). Retrieved November 17, 2012, from
http://science.nationalgeographic.co.uk/science/space/space-
exploration/space-shuttle-program/
National Space Administration. (2007). The Pioneer Missions.
Natural England. (Unknown). Nature on the Map. Retrieved October 1, 2012, from
http://www.natureonthemap.naturalengland.org.uk/map.aspx?m=nreserves
Nirex. (2003). Identification and Description of UK Radioactive Wastes and Materials
potentially requiring Long-Term management. Report N/085.
Nirex. (2005). The viability of a phased geological repository concept for the long
term management of the UK's radioactive waste.
Nolin, J. (1993). Communicating with the Future : Implications for Nuclear Waste
Disposal.
Nuclear Decomissioning Authority. (2010). Geological Disposal Generic Operational
Safety Assessment: Volume 1 - Construction and nonradiological safety
assessment.
Nuclear Decomissioning authority. (2010). Geological Disposal: Generic disposal
facility design. NDA.
Nuclear Decomissioning Authority. (2010). Geological disposal: generic disposal
facility design.
Nuclear Decomissioning Authority. (2010). Geological Disposal: Generic Disposal
Facility Design.
Nuclear Decomissioning Authority. (2010). Geological Disposal: Generic Transport
Safety Case main report.
Nuclear Decomissioning Authority. (2010). Geological Disposal: Generic Transport
Safety Case main report.
Nuclear Decomissioning Authority. (2010). Geological Disposal: Generic Transport
Safety Case main report.
Nuclear Decomissioning Authority. (2010). High level waste returned overseas from
Sellafield. Retrieved November 15, 2012, from
http://www.nda.gov.uk/news/waste-returns.cfm?renderforprint=1&
134
Nuclear Decomissioning Authority. (2012). Geological Disposal: Generic Transport
Safety Case main report.
Nuclear Decomissioning Authority. (2012). Our role in Geological disposal. Retrieved
November 17, 2012, from http://www.nda.gov.uk/aboutus/geological-
disposal/index.cfm
Nuclear Energy Agency. (2007). Fostering a Durable Relationship Between a Waste
Management Facility and its Host Community.
Olsson, O., Bengt, L., Ingrid, A., Kaj, A., Johan, A., Allan, H., et al. (2009). Final
repository for spent fuel in Forsmark – basis for decision and reasons for site
selection.
Radiation Free Lakeland. (2012). Remembering Chernobyl – Giant Postcard to the
Lake District National Park. Retrieved October 02, 2012, from
http://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/remembering-chernobyl-
giant-postcard-to-the-lake-district-national-park/
Richardson, R. (1999). Retrievability of high level waste and spent nuclear fuel,
Proceedings of an international seminar organized by the Swedish National
Council for Nuclear Waste.
Royal Haskoning. (2009). Contaminated Land Phase I Desk Study Sizewell B Dry
Fuel Store & Western Car Park Extension.
Royal Haskoning. (2009). Contaminated Land Phase I Desk Study Sizewell B Dry
Fuel Store & Western Car Park Extension.
Sellafield Ltd. (Unknown). Profile: Site Locations. Retrieved October 02, 2012, from
http://sellafieldsites.com/profile/
Shutdown Sizewell Campaign. (Unknown). Nuclear Power ? No Thanks. Retrieved
October 20, 2012, from http://www.shutdown-sizewell.org.uk/
Smythe. (2012). Why West Cumbria is unsuitable for a deep geological nuclear
waste facility.
Smythe, D. (2010). Why the Whole of West Cumbria is unsuitable for a nuclear
waste repository. Glasgow: David Smythe.
Smythe, D. (2011). Why a deep nuclear waste repository should not be sited in
Cumbria: a geological review.
Sorenson, K., Howarth, S., Lee, M. Y., Finley, R., Kang, C., & Choi, J. (2008).
Conceptual design and performance assessment of a deep geological
repository for high-level nuclear waste in Korea.
Stop Nuclear Power. (2012). Sizewell Camp 2012 - Report and Pics. Retrieved
October 20, 2012, from http://stopnuclearpoweruk.net/content/sizewell-camp-
2012-report-and-pics
135
Thunberg, A. (1999). Retrievability of high level waste and spent nuclear fuel,
Proceedings of an international seminar organized by the Swedish National
Council for Nuclear Waste.
Tonn, B. E. (2001). Institutional Designs for Long-Term Stewardship of Nuclear and
Hazardous Waste Sites. Technological Forecasting & Social Change.
United States Geological Survey. (Unknown). Basaltic and other Volcanic rock
aquifers. Retrieved 10 11, 2012, from http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_a/A-
text7.html
Vial, E. (Unknown). The Concept of Responsibility to Future Generations for the
Management and Storage of Radioactive Waste.
West Cumbria Managing Radioactive Waste Safely Partnership. (2012). Briefing
Note: The Partneship's opinon survey. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from
http://www.westcumbriamrws.org.uk/documents/247-
Opinion_Survey_Briefing_Note_January_2012.pdf
West Cumbria Managing Radioactive Waste Safely Partnership. (2012). Questions
about the MRWS process in West Cumbria. Retrieved Ocotber 03, 2012, from
http://www.westcumbriamrws.org.uk/images/qas.pdf
WINDPOWER. (Unknown). Estimating mean wind speed. Retrieved November 10,
2012, from http://www.wind-power-program.com/windestimates.htm
World Nuclear News. (2012, May 24). Cumbrians back repository site search.
Retrieved October 02, 2012, from http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-
Cumbrians_back_respository_site_search-2405124.html