Radioactive Waste Management: an Update
CHAPTER 1: Introduction
1.1. This report examines the Government's[1]
proposals on radioactive waste management, following the publication
of the final report of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management
(CoRWM) in July 2006.[2]
1.2. The current report is the fourth that we
have published on the subject of radioactive waste management.[3]
The first of these, Management of Nuclear Waste, appeared
in 1999, in the aftermath of the refusal by a 1997 public inquiry
to grant planning permission to Nirex to develop a rock characterisation
facility near Sellafield, a necessary precursor to the development
of a long-term disposal facility. In that report we concluded:
- That phased disposal in a deep
geological repository was the most feasible and desirable method
for dealing with radioactive waste;
- That any proposed policies for the long-term
management of nuclear waste should be preceded by extensive consultation
and ultimately be set out in primary legislation;
- That the legislation should create a new, statutory
body, with responsibility for developing an overarching and comprehensive
implementation strategy;
- That any plans for policy implementation developed
by the statutory body should be subject to explicit endorsement
by Parliament at regular and appropriate intervals.
1.3. Some of what we recommended in 1999 has
since come to pass, albeit painfully slowly. A key event was the
appointment by Government in 2003 of the Committee on Radioactive
Waste Management (CoRWM) to consult on and review the options
for long-term disposal and make recommendations on the best way
forward. In practice, much of CoRWM's time was devoted to "public
and stakeholder engagement", to the exclusion of scientific
analysis of the available options, and we were roundly critical
of this preoccupation in our 2004 report Radioactive Waste
Management. Nevertheless, when CoRWM reported, on schedule,
in July 2006, it produced a well balanced report, around which
it should be possible to build long-term consensus.
1.4. Central to the CoRWM report were three recommendations.
These broadly echoed and developed the conclusions we had reached
back in 1999:
- CoRWM concluded that geological
disposal currently presented the best available approach for the
long-term management of high-level and intermediate-level legacy
waste coupled with a robust programme of interim storage until
such a facility becomes available.
- CoRWM recommended that in order to maintain public
engagement and trust a suitable site for a geological repository
should be determined not just by geological criteria but by a
participative process in which potential host communities would
declare a willingness to participate in return for community packages
which would be aimed at enhancing the well-being of the community.
- Finally, CoRWM recommended that the implementation
process should be overseen by an independent body with responsibility
for overseeing the siting strategy, the research and development
programme and the community partnership process.
1.5. The key difference between CoRWM's recommendations
and what we recommended in 1999 is that our recommendation would
have established an independent body, outside day-to-day Government
control, and to be called the Nuclear Waste Management Commission.
The responsibilities of this body to oversee the implementation
of Government policy would have been enshrined in primary legislation.
The workings of the Commission would have been as open as possible,
and its plans for policy implementation would have required explicit
endorsement by Parliament at regular intervals.
1.6. Whilst CoRWM recommended that an independent
body should be established to oversee implementation, they did
not recommend either a statutory basis or direct accountability
to Parliament. In fact, CoRWM did not consider such a process
(Q 41). Thus CoRWM's proposals, although not inconsistent with
our own, were in certain important aspects watered down.
1.7. On 25 October 2006 the Government's response
to the CoRWM report was published.[4]
In essence, CoRWM's recommendations were accepted. However, there
were crucial reservations to this broad acceptance. In particular,
CoRWM's recommendation to establish an independent overseeing
body was watered down still further. We analyse the Government's
response in more detail in the following chapters.
1.8. Our current report describes the institutional
and organisational arrangements as they were presented to us in
evidence. We accept that most of the policy detail is still being
developed. We therefore regard this report as an interim comment
on current Government proposals, which we intend to follow up
again at an appropriate time in the future.
1 Governance in the area of radioactive waste management
is complicated by devolution. In this report we use the term "the
Government" to refer to the various departments and agencies
of the United Kingdom Government, within which the Department
for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is the lead department,
and to whom our report and recommendations are addressed. However,
the Government's publications tend to use the formal term "Government"
to embrace not just the various departments of the United Kingdom
Government, but also the Devolved Administrations-indeed, the
response to the CoRWM report was on published on behalf of "Government",
not "the Government". While much of what we say is equally
relevant to the devolved administrations as to Whitehall, we have
no locus with regard to them, and therefore for simplicity's sake
we have not used the term "Government" in this broader
sense. Back
2
Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, Managing our Radioactive
Waste Safely-CoRWM's recommendations to Government
(July 2006). Back
3
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). Back
4
UK Government and the Devolved Administrations, Response to
the report and recommendations from the Committee on Radioactive
Waste Management (CoRWM) (October 2006). Back
|
