CHAPTER 1: Introduction
Background
1. This is the fifth report that the House of
Lords Science and Technology Committee has published on the subject
of radioactive waste management.[1]
Our first report, Management of Nuclear Waste, was published
in 1999 after a public inquiry in 1997 refused to grant Nirex
planning permission to develop a rock characterisation facility
near Sellafield, then seen to be a necessary step toward the development
of a long-term disposal facility for radioactive waste. In that
report we considered various methods for managing nuclear waste
and concluded that disposal in a deep geological repository was
the most feasible and desirable method of dealing with radioactive
waste. We recommended that the Government create a new statutory
body to develop an overarching and comprehensive implementation
strategy.
2. We published our second report, Managing
Radioactive Waste: the Government's consultation, in 2001
and expressed our disappointment at the "slow progress"
to date. We noted that the Minister seemed to feel "little
sense of urgency" about the need for progress.[2]
In 2003, the Government appointed the Committee on Radioactive
Waste Management (CoRWM) to consult on and review the options
for the long-term disposal of radioactive waste. Our 2004 report,
Radioactive Waste Management, reviewed the role and performance
of CoRWM, and criticised it for focusing on public and stakeholder
engagement to the exclusion of scientific analysis of the available
options. When CoRWM reported in 2006, however, we felt it had
produced a "well balanced report".[3]
It had three central recommendations:
- geological disposal presented the best available
approach for the long-term management of radioactive waste, while
in the meantime a robust programme of interim storage was required
until a geological disposal facility became available;
- the site of any disposal facility should be determined
not only by geological criteria, but by a process in which potential
host communities would express a willingness to participate in
return for community packages which would aim to enhance the well-being
of the community; and
- an independent body be appointed to oversee the
implementation process, including a research and development programme,
the siting strategy and public and stakeholder engagement.
3. The Government's response to CoRWM's report
was published in October 2006. They accepted that geological disposal,
coupled with a robust interim storage strategy, was the way forward
for the long-term management of nuclear waste in the UK, and made
a commitment to explore an approach based on volunteerism (that
is, willingness to participate). However, instead of creating
an independent body to oversee the implementation process, the
Government charged the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA)
with responsibility for developing and ensuring delivery and implementation
of interim storage and geological disposal programmes, and decided
to appoint an independent advisory committee to provide advice
and scrutiny on the NDA's work. At the end of 2007, a reconstituted
CoRWM, with modified terms of reference and a new membership,
was appointed to carry out this role.
4. Our 2007 report, Radioactive Waste Management:
an Update, focused on the institutional arrangements for implementing
the next stage of the Government's programme for managing radioactive
waste and in particular the role of a revised CoRWM. We concluded
that its proposed remit, as laid out in the Government's response
to CoRWM's report in 2006, was "highly confusing", and
raised questions about its independence. We concluded that it
was imperative that it should have the necessary independence
and authority to scrutinise the Government's proposals for implementation.
Some of these concerns had been met by the time a revised CoRWM
was appointed, with CoRWM's revised terms of reference placing
a greater emphasis on its scrutiny role.
5. In June 2008, the Government published a white
paper, Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: a Framework for Implementing
Geological Disposal ("MRWS programme"), which set
out plans for long-term geological disposal, the safe and secure
interim storage of waste, and the research and development needs
to support these objectives. The reconstituted CoRWM published
three major reports during 2009 scrutinising the progress of the
MRWS programme, covering interim storage, geological disposal
and research and development. The Government have published a
response to the first two of these reports; they will be responding
to the third during 2010.
Purpose and scope of the inquiry
6. The purpose of this inquiry was to assess
how the reconstituted CoRWM has performed in the past two years,
to consider whether its remit has proved appropriate, and to gauge
its impact on the implementation of the Government's MRWS programme.
We launched our inquiry in January 2010. Given the relatively
short period of time available to us prior to the dissolution
of Parliament, rather than issuing a general call for evidence,
we invited written evidence from selected organisations, representing
a range of views both within and without Government. In addition,
representatives from CoRWM and the Government gave oral evidence.
7. We would like to thank all of our witnesses
for their contribution to this short inquiry. The membership and
interests of the sub-committee are set out in Appendix 1 and those
who submitted written and oral evidence are listed in Appendix
2. The call for evidence with which we launched our inquiry is
reprinted in Appendix 3.
1 The Committee's previous reports were: Management
of Nuclear Waste, 3rd Report, Session 1998-1999
(HL Paper 41), Managing Radioactive Waste: the Government's
consultation, 1st Report, Session 2001-2002 (HL
Paper 36), Radioactive Waste Management, 5th
Report, Session 2003-2004 (HL Paper 200), and Radioactive Waste
Management: an Update, 4th Report, Session 2006-2007
(HL Paper 109). Back
2
Managing Radioactive Waste: the Government's consultation,
1st Report, Session 2001-2002 (HL Paper 36), introduction. Back
3
Radioactive Waste Management: an Update, 4th
Report, Session 2006-2007 (HL Paper 109), p. 8. Back
|
