Plans to dispose of the UK’s high-level nuclear waste in an underground repository – a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) – have been described as “unachievable” by a Treasury unit.
The National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (Nista) issued the appraisal in its Annual Report 2024-2025,1 published on 11 August, in which ratings were provided signifying the achievability of 214 major infrastructure projects.
Geological disposal has been described as the only proven, technically feasible option for dealing with radioactive waste,2 and efforts to build such a facility have been initiated in a number of places, notably Finland, and also Sweden, which announced ground-breaking on a facility in January this year.
The GDF would be an engineered facility located deep underground (UK policy has specified a depth of 200m – 1000m), equipped to safely store high-level radioactive waste for thousands of years. It depends for its function upon the surrounding geology to some extent, but also employs heavily engineered elements such as with the packaging and sealing of the waste itself.
The immense scale of such a project is apparent from the fact it would only follow the approval of two separate development consent order (DCO) applications, one for exploratory works and another for the project.3
Responsibility for its delivery lies with Nuclear Waste Services (NWS), the operating arm of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), a non-departmental public body accountable to DESNZ.
A spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said: “Constructing the UK’s first geological disposal facility will provide an internationally recognised safe and permanent disposal of the most hazardous radioactive waste.
“Progress continues to be made in areas taking part in the siting process for this multibillion-pound facility, which would bring thousands of skilled jobs and economic growth to the local area.”
Nista’s Annual Report 2024-2025 has estimated the whole life cost at between £20 billion and £54 billion.
The document is the first such annual report from Nista, which combines the functions of the previous National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA), and which came into being in April 2025. It maintains the colour coding used in reports from its predecessors to signify its assessment of the deliverability of projects.
As New Civil Engineer reported, the GDF has followed a shifting course in recent years between green, amber and red ratings. Green is the most propitious for delivery, while amber signifies “Successful delivery appears feasible but significant issues already exist, requiring management attention”. Red, on the other hand, means “Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable”, the source of the designation now being widely reported in respect of the GDF.
The explanation of the red rating continues: “There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed.”
The GDF was rated “amber” in the IPA’s January 2025 report.
The new report, from Nista, is the first time it has received an outright “red” rating, in the record of publicly released IPA reports going back to 2013.
“Government policy for the Geological Disposal Facility is predicated upon finding a project development site that is publicly acceptable, geologically ‘suitable’ and affordable”, explains the website of Nuclear Free Local Authority.4
“So far, the first two of these hurdles have proven problematic to jump for the taxpayer funded body charged with finding a site and developing the facility.”
Previous attempts to agree on a site for a GDF have ended in deadlock, such as in January 2013 when Cumbria County Council withdrew in the face of public opposition, and most recently, with a restarted siting process, when Theddlethorpe Parish Council withdrew in July 2023.
Allerdale in Cumbria ended its engagement in 2022 when the Borough Council declined to proceed, citing a lack of suitable geology.
Only Mid Copeland and South Copeland are currently still engaged with Nuclear Waste Services in the search for a suitable site. The website of Nuclear Free Local Authorities suggests that local resistance is growing that could block the progress of these plans.
Notes
[1] NISTA Annual Report 2024-25. Link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nista-annual-report-2024-2025/nista-annual-report-2024-25
[2] Comment attributed to Professor Rebecca Lunn from the presentation “Meeting the challenge of geological disposal of UK higher quality radioactive waste” made at the University of Strathclyde in 2016. A report appears here: https://envirotecmagazine.com/2017/03/16/a-pressing-matter/
[3] “Geological disposal facility for nuclear waste could cost £54bn and ‘appears unachievable’”, New Civil Engineer, 15 August 2025.
[4] https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/unproven-and-costly-nuclear-waste-dump-red-rated-as-unachievable/
