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.

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