APPENDIX: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE HOUSE
OF LORDS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE REPORT: RADIOACTIVE
WASTE MANAGEMENT: AN UPDATE
This document provides the Government's response
to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report
entitled "Radioactive Waste Management an Update" published
on 3 June 2007.
The Government welcomes the Committee's report and
the opportunity that it provides to explain how the Government's
thinking and planning has developed since its evidence was provided
in January and February of this year. Much has moved on, not least
in light of the Government's interaction with the Committee at
that time. The Government will be publishing the detail of its
programme proposals in its forthcoming Managing Radioactive Waste
Safely (MRWS) consultation document, which will provide opportunity
for wider input and comment.
The consultation document will set out the Government's
proposed:
- framework for implementing geological
disposal of the UK's higher activity radioactive waste, including
a voluntarist/partnership approach to site selection; and
- an outline geological disposal delivery programme.
In this document Government responds to each of the
recommendations summarised in Chapter 4 of the Committee's report
in light of its current thinking.
Response to recommendations
Recommendation 1
The Government should acknowledge the potential for
conflict and confusion inherent in their proposed institutional
arrangements for the MRWS programme, and take steps to ensure
that clear leadership and lines of accountability are established.
(2.17)
The Government believes roles, responsibilities and
accountabilities are clear. They are:
- The Government will set the policy,
take final decisions and engages with all players to ensure that
the objectives of the MRWS programme are met.
- NDA will be responsible for implementing geological
disposal and, as part of this process, engaging with the communities
and other stakeholders involved.
- Independent regulators will ensure robust, independent
regulation. They have statutory responsibilities for ensuring
that national, EU and international safety, security and environmental
standards are met.
- CoRWM will provide independent scrutiny and advice
on the Government's and NDA's plans and programmes for delivering
geological disposal.
- Communities with a potential interest in hosting
a geological disposal facility will have the opportunity to work
with the NDA and others in a partnership approach during the implementation
process.
- Local Government will be fully engaged in the
potential partnership approach and will play a part in decision-making
during the site selection process and operation of the planning
system.
Bodies such as the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely
Implementation Planning Group (IPG) and the Repository Development
Monitoring Committee essentially provide communication and discussion
channel linkages between these key players. In practice, there
will need to be other such linkages to help ensure effective and
efficient delivery of the programme. But the fundamental roles
and responsibilities as set out above are clear.
Recommendation 2
We therefore urge the Government to look again
at our 1999 recommendation for a wholly independent, permanent
body, subject to regular endorsement by Parliament, to oversee
implementation of the MRWS programme. However, if they are unable
to recognise the merits of that proposal, we would strongly endorse
the setting-up of an independent overseeing body, as recommended
by CoRWM. (2.18)
David Miliband's statement to Parliament of 25 October
2006 made clear that responsibility for securing the geological
disposal of radioactive waste will lie with the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority (NDA). This serves to create a single national waste
management organisation with statutory responsibility and accountability
for the management of all radioactive waste categories through
all stages of the waste management chain.
The role of the reconstituted CoRWM will be to provide
independent scrutiny of and advice on the geological disposal
implementation programme. The terms of reference of the Committee
have been further developed since the draft included in the Government's
October 2006 response to CoRWM. The current version, used as the
basis for advertising appointments to the reconstituted Committee
in March 2007, is at Annex A. Key paragraphs to note in respect
of this recommendation are:
"2. The role of the reconstituted Committee
on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) will be to provide independent
scrutiny and advice to UK Government and Devolved Administration
Ministers on the long term management, including storage and disposal,
of radioactive waste. CoRWM's primary task is to provide independent
scrutiny on the Government's and NDA's proposals, plans and programmes
to deliver geological disposal, together with robust interim storage,
as the long term management option for the UK's higher activity
wastes.
Sponsoring Ministers (from Defra, DTI and the Devolved
Administrations) will agree a three-year rolling programme and
budget for CoRWM's work on an annual basis. Any in-year changes
will be the subject of agreement by sponsoring Ministers.
CoRWM will provide appropriate and timely evidence-based
advice on Government and Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA)
plans for the delivery of a geological disposal facility for higher
activity wastes under the Managing Radioactive Waste Safety programme.
The work programme may include review of activities including
waste packaging options, geological disposal facility delivery
programmes and plans, site selection processes and criteria, and
the approach to public and stakeholder engagement. Testing the
evidence base of the plans for the delivery of a geological disposal
facility will be a key component of the work. As well as ongoing
dialogue with Government, the implementing body, local authorities
and stakeholders, the CoRWM will provide an annual report of its
work to Government.
CoRWM shall undertake its work in an open and consultative
manner. It will engage with stakeholders and it will publish advice
(and the underpinning evidence) in a way that is meaningful to
the non-expert. It will comply, as will sponsoring departments,
with Guidelines on Scientific Analysis in Policy Making (http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file9767.pdf)
as well as other relevant Government advice and guidelines. Government
will respond to all substantive advice. Published advice and reports
will be made available in respective Parliaments/Assemblies, as
will any Government response. CoRWM's Chair will attend Parliamentary/Assembly
evidence sessions as and when required".
Government believes that these arrangements fully
meet the requirements for dependent scrutiny of and advice on
the implementation programme.
Recommendation 3
The Government must make it clear how they intend
to approach the site screening process. If it is not already their
intention, we recommend that they accept CoRWM's recommendation
on initially "screening out" geologically unsuitable
sites. "Screening in" runs contrary to the voluntarist
principle and will inevitably lead to anxiety among local communities.
It would not only impede and even hinder the partnership process
but would also constitute a waste of time and resource. (2.26)
The Government explained its proposals for the development
of site screening criteria in its evidence to the Committee on
Science and Technology in January 2007. Subsequently, two expert
groups—established on the basis of recommendation from the
Royal Society, the Geological Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering
and the Defra Chief Scientific Advisor, Professor Sir Howard Dalton—were
asked to develop criteria for the purpose of initial "screening
out" geologically unsuitable areas. These criteria will be
included in the Government's consultation document proposals.
The two groups were a Criteria Proposals Group (CPG)
and a Criteria Review Panel (CRP). Starting in February 2007,
the CPG, consisting of nine members led by Professor Peter Styles
of Keele University, developed the initial screening criteria
proposals. These were then independently peer reviewed by the
CRP, consisting of six members led by Professor Howard Wheater
of Imperial College. These two groups have operated in an open
and transparent way in carrying out their work (see www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/waste/hilw/disposal.htm).
The two groups were also assisted in their deliberations by discussion
at a stakeholder workshop held in Reading on 14 May 2007. A copy
of the joint CPG/CRP report, that takes account of the outcome
of CRP review and of the workshop, may also be found on the Defra
website.
The Government's proposal is that once communities
have expressed an interest, the British Geological Survey (BGS)
be asked to apply the Annex B criteria consistently to all the
areas in question, in order to eliminate from the process any
that are obviously unsuitable and so avoid further unnecessary
work. The BGS would make a draft report available for appropriate
discussion and review (e.g. by other experts, the community concerned,
the NDA, the regulators and CoRWM) prior to completion and publication
in its final form.
The Government believes that applying the criteria
on the basis of request is the right approach, as the criteria
do not by their nature lend themselves to application, in advance,
in every part of the UK, and doing so would be prohibitively expensive
and time-consuming. Subject to demand and (if appropriate) vetting
of expressions of interest, Government will fund this initial
screening work.
Recommendation 4
We recommend that the Government conduct a phased
site-selection process. The Government should begin by using scientific
criteria to screen out unsuitable areas of the country. Subsequently,
socio-economic criteria would need to be considered in parallel
with the partnership process. In our view, rushing through this
process in three or four months is disproportionate to importance
and length of the overall project. We recommend that the Government
reconsider the timescale for this process, which forms the foundation
of the geological disposal programme. (2.31)
The Government will be presenting proposals for a
phased site selection process in its consultation document. It
is acknowledged that this process will take years. There has never
been any suggestion that it will take three or four months.
This process will involve the progressive evaluation
of community expressions of interest through to the identification
of a preferred host community and site. The process will begin
by using the initial screening criteria, developed by the CPG
and CRP groups to screen out any geologically unsuitable areas
as part of this process. The criteria which have been produced
and formally agreed by the two groups will be offered for comment
in the MRWS consultation document.
Once a preferred host community and site has been
identified, through a process that will be explained in the Government's
consultation document, further, more detailed characterisation
and assessment of the site will follow. This will include the
excavation of shafts and tunnels several hundred metres deep for
the purpose of underground investigations, drawing on a range
of scientific and technical disciplines such as geology, geophysics,
hydrogeology, chemistry, etc. Appropriate land-use planning and
regulatory approvals would need to be obtained for this stage
of work. The aim of the investigative work would be to evaluate
more thoroughly a site's suitability to host a geological disposal
facility that would comply with regulatory safety and environmental
requirements.
European legislation[2]
requires that certain public-sector plans and programmes likely
to have significant effects on the environment are subject to
assessment during their preparation to ensure that these effects
are fully taken into account before the plan or programme is adopted.
This process is known as "strategic environmental assessment"
or SEA. It is good practice to integrate SEA[3]
within a wider sustainability appraisal (SA) which also considers
social and economic factors and tests the effects of plans and
programmes against sustainability criteria.
Furthermore, European legislation[4]
also requires 'environmental impact assessment' (EIA) of certain
individual projects. For proposals requiring EIA, the developer
is required to prepare an environmental statement on the impacts
of the project, which must be considered when deciding whether
to grant planning permission.
The Government is committed to ensuring that the
NDA's geological disposal facility programme fully assesses and
accounts for environmental impact and sustainability issues through
the application of SEA, SA and EIA. The Government will require
the NDA to prepare and publish for consultation its proposals
for doing this as part of the planning for its geological disposal
facility development programme.
Recommendation 5
Progress on the MRWS programme must, as we first
noted in 1999, be steady and measured. We therefore recommend
that the Government delay the publication of the consultation
document until the terms of reference of the successor to CoRWM
have been finalised and the new Committee has been appointed.
We regard the consultation as the first important step in the
implementation process, and one which should also involved the
new CoRWM. (2.35)
While progress must be steady and measured, we must
also look to maintain the momentum of the forward programme. In
their 1999 report the Science and Technology Committee said that
it requires a determined effort on the part of Government and
the public to arrive at a solution without unnecessary delay.
The terms of reference of the reconstituted CoRWM published at
the time of the Government's October 2006 response have been amended
in light of subsequent discussions both within Government and
with bodies such as CoRWM and NULEAF (see Annex A), and are currently
being used as a basis for appointment of the reconstituted Committee.
The appointment process will follow fully the Code of Practice
issued by the Office of Commissioner for Public Appointments.
It commenced in March and should be complete by August. It is
proposed to issue the Government's consultation document prior
to the summer recess with a closing date of in the autumn of 2007.
This timing will allow opportunity for the new CoRWM to comment.
Government has been working energetically on the implementation
programme proposals for many months now. It therefore sees no
need for delay to its consultation.
Recommendation 6
We recommend that the Government, at an appropriate
time in the future, amend the Energy Act in order to reflect the
changing nature of the NDA's responsibilities as it approaches
the end of the current decommissioning process. (2.41)
The Government notes that the Committee on Science
and Technology does not dispute Government's view that the terms
of the Energy Act 2004 allow for the NDA to implement and operate
a geological disposal facility for the UK's higher activity radioactive
waste. However, taking account of the Committee's comments, the
Government will give consideration to any needs for amendment
of the Energy Act 2004, or appropriate Ministerial direction to
the NDA, as its work proceeds. As the decommissioning programme
referred to by the Committee is likely to continue for many decades,
consideration of such changes is an issue for the longer term.
Recommendation 7
We recommend that in coming to their conclusion
on how best to engage at local level, the Government and the NDA
should take advice from all relevant local organisations, and
in particular NULEAF, rather than relying on the NDA's existing
stakeholder groups. (2.48)
The Government agrees with this recommendation and
will expect the NDA to tailor its public and stakeholder engagement
in accordance with the needs of the geological disposal programme
and also advice received from CoRWM and stakeholders. The Government
itself has been in discussion with NULEAF concerning the future
programme since its October 2006 announcement. The NDA has also
participated in these discussions with NULEAF regarding the implementation
programme and NDA's plans to progress it.
Recommendation 8
Decisions on how to implement the geological repository
programme should be evidence-based. Simply "believing"
something to be the right approach is not an adequate foundation
on which to build. We recommend that the reasons and evidence
for policy decisions in this area, in particular for the decision
to set up an advisory committee instead of an overseeing body,
should be published in full. (2.61)
As the Government stated in its evidence the reconstituted
CoRWM will "have teeth" and its advice will have a real
influence on the geological disposal programme. This is reflected
in its revised terms of reference (Annex A) and, in particular,
the paragraphs referred to in the response to recommendation 2.
The Government is committed to an evidence-based approach in all
it activities, and paragraph 4 of the CoRWM terms of reference
provided in Annex A states clearly that Government expects CoRWM
to provide advice on this issue.
Points taken into account by the Government in arriving
at its organisational proposals are that:
- It is difficult for any body to
retain an "independent" advisory status if that body
itself acquires executive functions; and
- The responsibility and accountability of the
NDA, as the implementing body, would also become blurred if any
second body were to be allocated such executive functions.
To give an example, if there were two bodies with
potentially overlapping executive functions, there could be potential
confusion as to which body is accountable for expenditure decisions
and the effective use of public money and also which is ultimately
accountable to the independent regulators (e.g. in respect of
safety case development).
Recommendation 9
We have already recommended that the Government
reconstitute the new CoRWM as an independent, overseeing body
with strengthened scientific, technological and social science
expertise. It should have a clearly defined authoritative role
in scrutinising geological disposal strategy development and implementation.
In doing so, it should submit periodic reviews to the MRWS Implementation
Group and the Repository Development Monitoring Committee. These
reports should be properly responded to and form an integral part
of the MRWS policy process. The Committee should have regular
access to Ministers and its Chairman should, when necessary, have
access to the Secretary of State. (2.62)
The Government agrees. The reconstituted CoRWM will
be an independent body, with strengthened scientific, technological
and social science expertise. It will have a clearly defined and
authoritative role in scrutinising disposal strategy development
and implementation (see terms of reference at Annex A). It will
submit periodic reviews to the MRWS Implementation Planning Group
and the Repository Development Monitoring Committee as part of
the process for advising Government. All substantive reports will
be responded to by the Government and will form part of the MRWS
implementation process. The Committee will have regular access
to sponsoring Ministers and the Chair will, when necessary, have
access to the Secretary of State.
Recommendation 10
Even if the Government's current proposals are
accepted in outline, the proposed remit of the new CoRWM is highly
confusing, and raises questions about the committee's independence.
These in turn may undermine the integrity of the scrutiny it is
intended to deliver. If the Government decide to proceed with
their current proposals, at the very least the terms of reference
will require substantial revision. We therefore recommend:
- Any scrutiny function assigned
to the new CoRWM, and the required responses to such scrutiny,
should be clearly defined and made explicit in the terms of reference.
- The relationship between the new CoRWM and
the NDA should be clarified, so as to avoid the prospect, which
currently looks likely, that the NDA will find itself both liaising
with CoRWM in developing advice to Government, and also, through
the Repository Development Monitoring Committee, itself considering
and responding to that advice.
- The relationship between the new CoRWM and
the NDA, as implementing body for geological disposal, should
also be defined in the NDA's revised governance arrangements.
(2.68)
CoRWM's terms of reference have been substantially
revised since the draft included in the Government's October 2006
response, upon which it appears the Science and Technology Committee
is commenting. The current terms of reference make clear the scrutiny
function assigned to the Committee and how Government will respond
to such scrutiny.
The originally mooted Repository Monitoring Committee
has now been renamed the Waste Managing Steering Group to reflect
its now somewhat widened role. The Steering Group will monitor
all of the NDA's long-term waste management planning and development
programmes, ensuring a holistic approach to the management of
all radioactive wastes, including both higher activity and low
level waste. However, the development of a geological disposal
facility for higher activity waste will be the main focus of the
Group's work.
As part of its work, the Steering Group will consider
the NDA's long-term waste management planning and delivery programmes
in light of advice received from the reconstituted CoRWM committee
and make proposals on how Government, in conjunction with the
NDA, should respond to such advice. The Chair and appropriate
members of CoRWM will be invited to attend Waste Management Steering
Group meetings as necessary.
The Waste Management Steering Group will also be
responsible, on the basis of its engagement with the NDA and CoRWM,
for providing advice to Government on progress with implementation
of geological disposal, and any decisions that need to be taken
by Government as the staged implementation programme proceeds.
Recommendation 11
We recommend that the Defra Chief Scientific Adviser
should play a prominent role in developing the new CoRWM's terms
of reference and membership. We further recommend that the Government
look to the relevant Learned Societies for advice on the Committee's
membership. (2.71)
Government agrees. The Defra Chief Scientific Adviser
has been fully involved in the development of the reconstituted
CoRWM's terms of reference. He has also offered input on the appointment
programme. Adverts for the appointments were published in relevant
national, regional and specialist press in March 2007. The learned
societies were invited to draw these advertisements to the attention
of their fellows and members.
Recommendation 12
A legal opinion, casting doubt on the legality
of the merger between Nirex and the NDA, has now been released.
We recommend that the Government now publish in full their view
of this legal opinion and their reasons for proceeding with the
merger in spite of it. (3.17)
As was made clear in the Government's evidence to
the Committee, the Nirex legal opinion was taken into account
by Government in arriving at its response to CoRWM. There was
suggestion that Nirex was perceived to have had certain functions
that came close to regulation. The answer given to Parliament
by Ian Pearson, the Minister of State for the Environment, on
17 July 2006 set out the clearly separated functions of Nirex
and the independent regulators.
Recommendation 13
We agree with the Environment Agency that the
setting of packaging standards from within the NDA can only be
a transitional arrangement, and we recommend that, in order to
ensure rigorous independent regulatory scrutiny, an implementation
contractor should be appointed within the next two years. (3.18)
The arrangements for the conditioning and packaging
of waste will be agreed between the NDA and the independent regulators,
including the environment agencies and HSE. This will include
any arrangements for the contracting out of this work. It will
be for the independent regulators to make clear their requirements
to the NDA.
Recommendation 14
We therefore urge the Government to consider giving
responsibility for the long term planning and co-ordination of
the required R&D and MRWS programme to a strategic overseeing
body constituted with scientific, technical and socio-economic
expertise. This would ensure that the programme was optimally
integrated with policy needs. The research itself could still
be carried out at the National Nuclear Laboratory. (3.25)
The NDA, as the implementing body, has statutory
responsibilities under the Energy Act 2004 for carrying out research
to support the activities for which it is reviewed. Where appropriate,
this research will involve the National Nuclear Laboratory. Government
will expect all the NDA's research to be appropriately quality
controlled and peer reviewed. CoRWM's terms of reference (see
Annex A) make it clear that testing the evidence base of the plans
for delivery of a geological disposal facility will be a key component
of its future work and advice.
Recommendation 15
We welcome the different initiatives undertaken
by the NDA and by the Government to ensure the supply of specialist
nuclear skills. However, particular attention should be paid to
training up and maintaining the specific expertise and skills
required for the long term geological disposal programme. (3.29)
The Government agrees. The NDA will set up and consult
on a skills plan for the implementation programme. A key issue
will be the extent to which the UK should "grow its own"
versus relying on international expertise.
Recommendation 16
The Government must engage in a much more open
dialogue with local communities and other stakeholders regarding
the risks presented by current temporary storage and the steps
taken to address them. We therefore recommend that the Government
review the amount and level of detail of information on nuclear
security that is made available to stakeholders or published.
Security arrangements form an integral part of the implementation
programme and information on their nature should be readily available.
(3.35)
The NDA is currently undertaking a national review
of waste storage arrangements. These will form part of its next
strategy statement, to be published in 2008, which will be the
subject of national consultation. There will also be discussions
with local stakeholders with an interest in the storage sites
involved.
Nuclear installations must have a site-specific security
plan approved by the Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS)
and any proposed changes to security plans must also be approved
in advance by OCNS. The security plan needs to provide details
on site security management, policing and guarding and to describe
in detail the site security measures and arrangements for managing
and reporting incidents. Approved carriers and, where necessary,
approved transport plans will also be required by OCNS where movement
of nuclear material to the repository is involved.
It is not Government policy to publish security plans
for obvious reasons. It will be for the NDA and its contractors
to agree with OCNS how much security planning information they
could reasonably and safely be made available to stakeholders
to help provide appropriate reassurance.
2 European Parliament and the Council of the European
Union, "Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects
of certain plans and programmes on the environment", Official
Journal of the European Communities, L197, 2001. Back
3
Department of Environment, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister,
Scottish Executive and Welsh Assembly Government, A Practical
Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive,
2005. Back
4
Directive 85/337/EEC as amended. Back
| 
