DORSET residents are being asked whether radioactive waste should be buried and left behind following the decommissioning of a nuclear site.
Nuclear Restoration Services Ltd (NRS) operated the site near Wool from 1959 to 1992 – and it is now in the final stages of decommissioning.
This will see the buildings flattened to return the area to heathland with public access.
The company has now approached the Environment Agency (EA) for permission to bury some of the demolition waste, which will leave some low-level radioactive waste at the site.
Before it makes a decision, however, the public is being asked to take part in a consultation to share their views on the plans.
In a first for England, NRS will be using our “Guidance on Requirements for Release from Radioactive Substances Regulation,” (GRR) to progress site decommissioning to the next stage.
The GRR guidance allows operators to leave radioactive and non-radioactive waste on site if it represents the best option after balancing social, economic and environmental factors.
READ MORE: Rescue centre needs YOUR help to feed orphaned orangutan
READ MORE: “Big flare-up” sees firefighters enter day FOUR of battling forest blaze
The EA said that there are some benefits to leaving waste on site – including reduced lorry movements, earlier decommissioning of sites, and saving space in national disposal facilities for waste that cannot be safely disposed of on-site.
Crucially, NRS must demonstrate these benefits to the EA.
Sally Coble, the EA’s nuclear regulation group south manager, said: “We want to hear as many views as possible about the NRS proposals, and all comments will be carefully considered along with all existing information.
“We will only vary the radioactive substances permit if we believe that harm to the environment, people and wildlife will be minimised.
Winfrith will be knocked down and if permits are changed some low level radioactive waste will be buried Picture: EA
“If the applicant can demonstrate that the varied permit will meet all of the legal requirements, including those for the use of Best Available Techniques (BAT), public radiation dose and wildlife radiation dose, then we are legally obliged to grant the application.
“We intend to consult again in spring 2026 on our likely decision, before publishing a final decision in autumn 2026.”
NRS said it would not import waste to the site from other locations as only waste from the on-site demolition work will be used to fill the subsurface structures.
Both the steam-generating heavy water reactor and the Dragon reactor, the first experimental high-temperature gas-cooled reactor, have large subsurface structures or basements constructed from reinforced concrete.
NRS plans to demolish all remaining site buildings, including the reactor buildings to ground level and to use the demolition waste produced to backfill the subsurface structures.
An engineered cap will be placed on top of the disposals to prevent rain from getting in, and this will likely be made from an artificial liner, a thick clay layer and a soil layer.
Some of the floors and walls of the subsurface structures have low-level radioactive contamination, and some of the waste that will be used to backfill the structure will be low-level radioactive waste.
The consultations can be found by clicking here and here.
All comments must be received by 11.59pm on September 5.
As a close resident to the site and a very young family and a local GP, i would have hoped to stay in the area. I completely oppose this dangerous and thoughtless proposal.
This area is supposed to be protected and for the locals have to jump through hurdles to do any improvements works to our residences to protect the AONB And dorset councils criteria
To then allow disposal of nuclear waste is a smack in the face to the locals who fight hard to preserve the character and nature and all its inhabitants of this beautiful area.
This proposal is unacceptable on environmental and social grounds. It places unquantifiable risk on the local community. Once buried the longer-term
impacts are unknown and it seems unlikely that there will be any accountability in years to come. When the decommissioning process was started there
must have been a proposal for waste management so an explanation is needed to justify why this is the ‘best’ solution, other than in economic terms.