CHAPTER 2: CORWM and the Managing Radioactive
Waste Safely Programme
Independent scrutiny of the MRWS
programme
8. CoRWM's terms of reference are to provide
"independent scrutiny and advice to UK Government and devolved
administrations on the long-term management ... of radioactive
waste". Its primary task is to provide "independent
scrutiny on the Government and Nuclear Decommissioning Authority's
(NDA) proposals, plans and programmes to deliver geological disposal,
together with interim storage, as the long-term management option
for the UK's higher activity wastes" (p 1).
9. CoRWM has published three reports covering
the three main strands of the MRWS programme: Interim storage
of higher activity wastes and the management of spent fuels, plutonium
and uranium (March 2009), Geological disposal of higher
activity radioactive wastes (July 2009), and Research and
development for interim storage and geological disposal of higher
activity radioactive wastes, and management of nuclear materials
(October 2009). As we have stated, the Government have responded
to the first two reports; the third response is due to be published
in the near future (QQ 79, 80).
10. According to the Department of Energy and
Climate Change (DECC), the Government have "accepted many
of CoRWM's recommendations" (p 22) and Lord Hunt of
Kings Heath, Minister of State at DECC, assured us that they took
the views of the Committee "very seriously" (Q 78).
The Nuclear Industry Association(NIA), a trade association
for the UK civil nuclear industry, endorsed this assertion. It
told us: "from what we can see Government clearly takes CoRWM's
advice into account in formulating its policies" (p 43).
11. Most witnesses were positive about CoRWM's
performance in scrutinising the Government. The NDA felt that
"CoRWM has effectively scrutinised the key aspects relating
to the implementation of the MRWS programme" (p 24).
The NIA shared a similar view (p 42). The Environment Agency
told us that CoRWM's reports "have generally been insightful
and positive" (p 37). Greenpeace, on the other hand,
expressed concerns: "CoRWM's efforts to scrutinise implementation
of the Government's MRWS programme are not as effective as they
could be" and explained that discussions with CoRWM members
had indicated that a "lack of funding" meant CoRWM was
not able "to undertake stakeholder work, or independent research,
to the extent it would like" (p 39). Professor Robert
Pickard, Chairman of CoRWM, disagreed: "I think we would
say that our funding is adequate at present for the task we have
in hand" (Q 3).
12. Although the Government have accepted many
of CoRWM's recommendations in principle, some witnesses felt that
it was too early to tell whether they would actually put them
into practice. CoRWM said that it would "judge Government
by its actions, rather than its words" but that "thus
far, neither the Government nor any other organisation mentioned
in the response[4] appears
to have taken any major actions to meet our recommendations"
(p 3). The Environment Agency also stated that while "Government
has accepted many of CoRWM's recommendations ... this acceptance
needs to be translated into demonstrable progress" (p 38).
Greenpeace was less than optimistic: "it is quite clear that
the Government does not intend to fully respond to, or act on,
CoRWM's advice" (p 41). Overall, Professor Pickard
thought that it was "probably too early to tell whether or
not" they were "having a significant effect on bringing
about beneficial change in the way in which the Government is
behaving" (Q 60).
13. Whilst we welcome the Government's positive
response to many of the recommendations in CoRWM's reports on
geological disposal and interim storage, it is important that
effective action is taken to ensure that these recommendations
are taken forward. We urge the Government to do so.
14. The Government has yet to respond to CoRWM's
recent report on research and development which concluded that
"the UK's existing civil facilities for research with highly
radioactive materials are inadequate".[5]
Lord Hunt assured us that the Government considered research and
development to be "important" and that they "recognise
the need for funding to be made available for research" (Q 118).
We welcome this assurance, and we look forward to such assurance
being reflected in the Government's response to CoRWM's report
on research and development.
15. We note CoRWM's statement that it is "continuing
to monitor" the Government's progress towards meeting CoRWM's
recommendations (p 3). Professor Pickard told us: "if
we felt that the Government was not responding to our advice ...
we would repeat it as appropriate at all the opportunities that
were presented in our discourse with the public and with the scientific
community and ... stakeholders" (Q 60). We believe
that CoRWM's monitoring activity should be put on a more formal
basis, so that stakeholders and the public can see clearly whether
the Government are putting CoRWM's advice into practice. We therefore
recommend that the Government should publish an annual report
setting out what action has been taken towards meeting CoRWM's
recommendations, so as to enable CoRWM effectively to monitor
the Government's progress in implementing its recommendations.
Timescales and timelines
16. The Government's MRWS programme is a long-term
project. Professor Pickard and Mr Mark Higson, Chief
Executive of the Office for Nuclear Development, told us that
they hoped a geological disposal facility would be operational
by 2040 (QQ 40, 113), and that it was expected to take up
until the middle of the 22nd century to put the UK's legacy waste
into that facility (Q 63). With such long timescales, there
is a risk of complacency. However, both the NIA and Environment
Agency stressed the importance of continuing to make good progress
in implementing the MRWS programme (pp 38, 42), while CoRWM
told us that "it is extremely important that we do not let
the process slip" (Q 64). We agree. We believe it
is essential that the MRWS programme continues to progress as
rapidly as possible.
17. Lord Hunt told us that he believed the MRWS
programme was making "good progress" (Q 69), a
view echoed by Professor Pickard who told us: "I think
things are progressing satisfactorily at the present time"
(Q 8). Despite this assurance, we are concerned that the
Government and CoRWM are failing to convey any sense of urgency
to move the programme forward with all possible speed. Professor Pickard,
for example, stated that "we should not have high expectations
of too rapid progress because of the nature of the work"
(Q 8), and Mr Higson told us that, although 2040 was
a good planning date, "if the timetable is delayed"
there was "no question" that a facility had to be up
and running by 2040 (Q 114). The Minister emphasised that
the Government was taking a "very, very careful approach"
since the MRWS programme was focused on taking "local communities
with us" (Q 70).
18. We feel that, far from viewing 2040 as the
earliest date by which a disposal facility could be completed,
the Government should be considering ways in which the schedule
could be brought forward. For example, Mr Bruce McKirdy,
Repository Technical Director at the NDA, told us that "during
the construction period there may be some opportunity for compressing
the programme", although he stressed that this could not
be guaranteed (Q 114). We urge the Government to consider
ways of speeding up the MRWS programme as plans for a geological
disposal facility become more defined, and as scientific and technical
improvements provide ways of increasing the rate of progress.
19. The Environment Agency told us that "CoRWM
should place an increasing emphasis on ... encouraging Government
to make timely progress with the MRWS programme" (p 37).
Greenpeace also remarked that part of CoRWM's role was the "monitoring
of progress and examining claims made about progress" (p 40).
We agree. We believe that CoRWM could help drive forward the
MRWS programme more rapidly by scrutinising, and if necessary
reporting on, the Government's progress.
20. We note that Lord Hunt is "setting out
milestones for the future", and that the NDA will "shortly
be publishing their Steps towards Implementation document
which sets out their detailed planning for geological disposal"
(Q 96). We welcome this development. We recommend that
the Government publish clear policy milestones for all aspects
of the MRWS programme, including for issues such as interim storage
and the disposal of waste generated by new nuclear power stations.
We recommend further that the Government should assist CoRWM in
its scrutiny of the Government's progress with regard to the MRWS
programme by including in the annual report we have recommended
in paragraph 15 above a statement of the extent to which these
milestones have been achieved.
Transparency
21. As an independent scrutiny body, CoRWM plays
an important role in maintaining public trust and confidence in
the MRWS programme. The NIA emphasised the importance it attaches
to "maintaining public confidence in the implementation of
the MRWS strategy", and noted that "CoRWM has in the
past and should in the future continue to play an important part
in achieving this" (p 42). Similarly, the NDA told us
that "independent scrutiny and advice can provide reassurance
to the public and stakeholders" (p 24).
22. However, the Environment Agency felt that
although CoRWM played an important role, "Government's oversight
of the MRWS programme could also be made more transparent to stakeholders
and the public" (p 38). Lord Hunt told us that: "overall
my general principle is that the more we are transparent, the
more clarity we can give you, the more likely there is to be public
confidence" (Q 102); and, he conceded, "in terms
of perhaps giving more certainty, in giving people a greater feel
about the timetable, there may be something more that we need
to be doing" (Q 100).
23. We believe that an annual report (as set
out in our recommendations in paragraphs 15 and 20 above) setting
out the Government's progress towards meeting both CoRWM's recommendations
and the Government's own policy milestones would improve the transparency
of the MRWS programme. We believe also that this would help maintain
public trust and confidence in the MRWS programme by strengthening
CoRWM's scrutiny role.
The scope of CoRWM's advice to
Government
24. CoRWM's remit confirms that it should provide
advice, as well as scrutiny, to the Government, and that it should
comment on their "proposals, plans and programmes" (p 1).
We were surprised, therefore, that the Government do not take
the view that CoRWM should advise on draft policy. The NDA told
us that "CoRWM should be clear that its starting point is
established Government policy, with its role being scrutiny of
the implementation of that policy" (p 25), and Lord
Hunt emphasised that CoRWM's "terms of reference are now
very much focused on scrutinising and providing advice on the
implementation of the policy rather than making new policy recommendations"
(Q 84).
25. The draft National Policy Statements (NPS)
for Energy Infrastructure were published in late 2009 and are
examples of policies with ramifications for the management of
radioactive waste in the UK. The draft NPS for Nuclear Power Generation
("Nuclear NPS") states that "the Government is
satisfied that effective arrangements will exist to manage and
dispose of the waste that will be produced from new nuclear power
stations".[6] This
is a significant statement for the Government to make, and yet
CoRWM was not asked to comment formally on the draft NPSs, either
before or after their publication for public consultation, except
"within the limitations of questions about factual accuracy"
(QQ 51, 93).
26. Ms Marion Hill, a member of CoRWM, told us
that CoRWM itself did not wish to offer its view on the NPSs before
they were published for consultation: "we would only comment
on factual accuracy ... because we wanted to be free to respond
to the consultation in an open way" (Q 51). She explained
that if CoRWM was to advise the Government before the draft policy
was published, "we would be seen to be in some way colluding
with Government and perhaps agreeing in advance with the preliminary
conclusion that they reached" (Q 51). Greenpeace indicated
there was some merit to this argument: they disagreed with the
Government's statement about radioactive waste in the Nuclear
NPS, and argued that "if CoRWM gets sucked into this deceit
it will not help its credibility" (p 41).
27. Although not requested to do so by the Government,
CoRWM decided to respond to the public consultation on the NPSs.
Its submission, however, was not prepared through CoRWM's usual
process of consultation and evidence gathering (see paragraph
33). Ms Hill told us that CoRWM's response to the draft NPSs would
not go "through such a long-winded process", partly
because "in a government consultation we feel that everybody
should express their own independent view" (Q 53). Professor Pickard
noted, however, that if the Government "welcomed advice from
us in a formal manner on this subject" then CoRWM would then
offer advice based on its "normal rigorous process"
(Q 53).
28. CoRWM's remit clearly states that it has
a role to play advising Government on policies that impact on
the MRWS programme. We welcome, therefore, CoRWM's decision to
respond to the Government's consultation on the NPSs, even though
it was not requested to do so by Government. However, as we discuss
in Chapter 3, we believe much of the value of CoRWM's advice lies
in the extensive consultation and evidence gathering that unpins
its work. CoRWM should not wait for an invitation before providing
advice based on a thorough process involving consultation and
evidence-gathering on policy proposals that have implications
for the management of radioactive waste.
29. We understand that CoRWM would not wish to
be drawn into the policy formation process in such a way as to
compromise its position as an independent scrutiny body by commenting
on policy before it has been published. Yet if CoRWM's advice
is to be used by Government, it should be given before policy
has been decided and set in stone. We believe that public consultations
are an appropriate time for CoRWM to comment on government policy
before it is finalised, while avoiding an impression of collusion
by allowing it to submit its advice in an open and transparent
manner.
30. We believe that CoRWM should provide independent
advice to Government on any draft (as well as established) policies
that have implications for the management of radioactive waste.
31. We are concerned that CoRWM was not asked
formally by the Government to comment on the draft National Policy
Statement for Nuclear Power Generation, despite the significance
of the claims it contains about the future management of radioactive
waste. Although we welcome CoRWM's decision to respond to the
public consultation on the National Policy Statement anyway, we
are concerned that it will not in these circumstances be providing
advice based on its usual comprehensive consultation and evidence-gathering
processes (as described in paragraph 33 below).
32. We recommend therefore that, in future,
the Government should ensure that CoRWM is able to respond to
Government consultations on policies with an impact on the MRWS
programme with formal reports based on its usual rigorous approach.
4 This refers to the Government response to CoRWM's
first report, on interim storage. Back
5
CoRWM, Report on National Research and Development for Interim
Storage and Geological Disposal of Higher Activity Wastes, and
Management of Nuclear Materials, 2009, p 10. Back
6
DECC, Draft National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation
(EN-6), November 2009, p 25, para 3.8.20. Back
|