Question 3: Do you agree that substituting vitrified radioactive waste from Sellafield for cemented Materials Test Reactor radioactive waste and/or Prototype Fast Reactor radioactive waste should be an available option to finalise the overseas contracts?
4.1 Most respondents answered 'yes' to this question.
4.2 One of the respondents commented that the substitution of vitrified waste would allow the recipient countries to use the expertise already obtained in this area through work with the UK to allow the returns of vitrified products from Sellafield.
4.3 Some respondents commented that the proposal would reduce the transport of radioactive waste and that using substitution rather than building another plant represented better value for the taxpayer.
4.4 Where respondents did not think Government was right to pursue this proposal, this tended to be because they disagreed with the adoption of the policy (see Q1).
4.5 One respondent agreed to the proposal 'in part', referring to answers given to questions 4 and 5.
4.6 Government believes that substituting vitrified radioactive waste from Sellafield for cemented Materials Test Reactor radioactive waste and/or Prototype Fast Reactor radioactive waste at Dounreay will allow Dounreay and its overseas customers to reach a suitable agreement that would allow the contracts to be fulfilled, thereby helping decommissioning, clean-up and effective management of radioactive waste at the site. The Government has therefore concluded that this form of radioactive waste substitution should be an available option.
4.7 Adopting such a policy option also provides an opportunity to co-ordinate waste returns under Dounreay contracts with transports of radioactive wastes already planned from Sellafield. This could help reduce the overall number of radioactive waste transport movements.