CHAPTER 4: List of Conclusions and recommendations
CoRWM and the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely
programme
INDEPENDENT SCRUTINY OF THE MRWS PROGRAMME
49. 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 (paragraph
13). (Recommendation 1)
50. We welcome the Government's assurance that
they regard research and development as important, and that it
should be appropriately funded. We look forward to such assurance
being reflected in the Government's response to CoRWM's report
on research and development (paragraph 14). (Recommendation 2)
51. 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 is 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 (paragraph 15). (Recommendation 3)
TIMESCALES AND TIMELINES
52. We believe it is essential that the MRWS
programme continues to progress as rapidly as possible (paragraph
16). (Recommendation 4)
53. 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 (paragraph 17). (Recommendation
5)
54. 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 (paragraph
18). (Recommendation 6)
55. We believe that CoRWM could help drive forward
the MRWS programme more rapidly by scrutinising, and if necessary
reporting on, the Government's progress (paragraph 19). (Recommendation
7)
56. 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 (see recommendation 3) a statement
of the extent to which these milestones have been achieved (paragraph
20). (Recommendation 8)
TRANSPARENCY
57. We believe that an annual report to CoRWM
(as detailed in recommendations 3 and 8) 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 (paragraph 23). (Recommendation 9)
THE SCOPE OF CORWM'S ADVICE TO GOVERNMENT
58. 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
(paragraph 30). (Recommendation 10)
59. 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 (paragraph 31). (Recommendation 11)
60. 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 (paragraph
32). (Recommendation 12)
CoRWM's working practices
THE IMPORTANCE OF EVIDENCE-BASED REPORTS
61. We commend CoRWM's rigorous approach to evidence
gathering and stakeholder engagement in its published reports
to date (paragraph 33). (Recommendation 13)
62. We believe that the same high standard which
is applied in developing CoRWM's formal advice to Government should
apply to all documents published by CoRWM. While we commend CoRWM's
commitment to transparency, extreme caution should be taken to
ensure that its working papers are not published until it is satisfied
they are accurate and evidence-based (paragraph 36). (Recommendation
14)
EXPERTISE OF CORWM MEMBERS
63. We believe that, at present, the membership
of CoRWM includes an appropriate range of geoscience expertise
to enable it to scrutinise effectively the current stage of the
MRWS programme. However, we take the view that CoRWM would benefit
from more members with experience of business and practical on-site
operations and engineering on the main Committee, and we recommend
that the Government and CoRWM arrange for this additional expertise
to be recruited at an early stage. More generally, we welcome
the Government's commitment to keep the Committee's skill set
under review as the MRWS programme progresses (paragraph 40).
(Recommendation 15)
CORWM'S WORK PROGRAMME
64. We recommend that CoRWM ensures its future
work programmes are focused on specific issues relevant to the
current stage of the MRWS programme (paragraph 43). (Recommendation
16)
65. We recommend that CoRWM should be free to
set its work programme and that it should not be subject to the
agreement of sponsoring ministers, although ministers should continue
to be able to request advice from CoRWM on specific topics as
necessary (paragraph 44). (Recommendation 17)
66. We feel it is appropriate for CoRWM to keep
a watching brief on technological alternatives to design and engineering
solutions within the context of a geological disposal programme,
so that it can advise the Government in the event of the evidence
base underlying Government policies changing (paragraph 46). (Recommendation
18)
SOCIAL AND ETHICAL EXPERTISE
67. We take the view that CoRWM should primarily
concentrate on providing evidence-based comment on technical issues
(paragraph 48). (Recommendation 19)
| 
