the factors that specifically influenced the dose impacts was key. The parameters important for radiation protection may not always be those of greatest interest to the technical specialists when focusing on their own areas of expertise. Shelly notes that“ An important aspect of learning is talking to other people! Other people may not be experts in radiation protection, but they are experts in something; make sure you tap into it.” This sentiment shows Shelly ' s innate respect for people, which appears again in her discussions on stakeholder engagement.
Reassuring the public“ I like solving problems people want the answer to” says Shelly regarding her more recent work supporting landfill disposals. After 32 years at NRPB, and as her work on the UK Recovery Handbook from Radiation Incidents was coming to an end, Shelly was looking for a new challenge and made the leap from a government job to a private one with Eden Nuclear and Environment Ltd. Shelly had performed the dose calculations which supported the policy to allow the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in permitted landfills. Prior to this, waste with low levels of activity would be sent to the Low Level Waste Repository( LLWR) at Drigg, which is now reserved for wastes which require stricter control due to their properties. Shelly was also involved with stakeholder engagement on this topic, which again demonstrates her skills in communication. Shelly is aware of the public fear of radiation and discusses how she had previously assessed the dose to the person likely to receive the highest dose( known as the representative person). However, when asked by concerned members of the public with regards to their specific circumstances, Shelly says;“ I ' d address that person ' s concerns. I ' ll do the calculations, and they feel better.” She states that specifically demonstrating this shows someone is listening and has checked, rather than dismissing their concerns by seemingly using science as a smokescreen.
Challenges in this field To round off our conversation I asked Shelly what she currently sees as the biggest challenge in the field of radioactive waste management.“ We need to get somewhere with the Geological Disposal Facility” states Shelly.“ I ' m still sympathetic to those who say we need to demonstrate the feasibility of geological disposal for HLW in the UK before embarking on future nuclear programmes. It was recommended in the 1976 Flowers Report, and we haven ' t got there yet.” But Shelly is still hopeful,“ Finland and Sweden have managed it. In Sweden the attitude is very responsible and there are communities here in the UK engaging in the process.”
Actual wording in The Flowers Report( Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution):
27. There should be no commitment to a large programme of nuclear fission power until it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that a method exists to ensure the safe containment of longJived, highly radioactive waste for the indefinite future( 181, 338).
34. There are two reasonable options for the permanent disposal of vitrified wastes: to geological formations on land and below the ocean bed. But neither of these has been sufficiently studied nor demonstrated as a feasible option( 397).
35. There should be a substantial UK effort in the field of disposal to geological formations on land and the required research should be carried out through the NERC and the IGS( 406-408).
The Flowers Report was released in September 1976 and is the sixth report of the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, chaired by Sir Brian Flowers
Radiation Protection Today Winter 2025 9