To: radioactivewaste@defra.gsi.gov.uk
15 December 2006
Dear Sir/Madam
INTRODUCTION
The Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) is a network of 75 urban and rural areas across the UK and Ireland. Full details are at: www.nuclearpolicy.info
The NFLA Steering Committee at its meeting in Leeds on 7 December 2006 considered the Government's response to CoRWM's recommendations. The meeting agreed to submit the observations set out below.
MAIN NFLA COMMENTS ON THE GOVERNMENT'S RESONSE TO CoRWM
DEFRA has not captured the heavily qualified nature
of CoRWM’s
recommendation about deep disposal. The concept is not proven for the many
thousands of years that containment and isolation of wastes would be required.
Important safety issues need to be resolved (e.g about the ability of a
facility to withstand the geological impact of inevitable climatic change
over the timescale in which emplaced wastes will require isolation, or
how carbon gases generated by the breakdown of organic matter can be vented
without creating a pathway for radioactivity back to the biosphere). The
Environment Agency in its November 2005 review of Nirex's phased geological
disposal concept, lists 10 'key technical challenges' "...where further
work is needed before an acceptable repository safety case could be generated." CoRWM
called for an intensified research programme to resolve these questions
but DEFRA commit only to ‘ongoing’ research. NFLAs believe
that failure to demonstrate and communicate convincingly that 'key technical
challenges' can be overcome will erode public confidence in the ability
to deliver a deep geological waste emplacement facility.
DEFRA disregards CoRWM’s recommendation about wastes from a new nuclear
programme. CoRWM’s entire public consultation and stakeholder engagement
programme was around the management of the higher-level legacy wastes,
not new wastes. CoRWM was explicit that a separate process of public consultation
would be necessary to establish a publicly acceptable policy for the management
of new wastes. DEFRA ignore this and openly state that consideration of
wastes from any new nuclear build will be included in developing a partnership
approach with a potential host community. DEFRA increase the risk of programme
failure if they seek partnership around an open ended and undefined inventory
of wastes, part of which has not been subject to any public consultation
or stakeholder engagement programme.
DEFRA skipped a stage of consultation in the process of developing policy.
CoRWM and stakeholders generally were unaware of the bilateral discussions
between DEFRA and the NDA about absorbing Nirex and handing the NDA the
policy implementation task. This runs counter to the ethos of openness
and transparency nurtured by CoRWM. One of the key issues for the future
is the maintenance of public confidence in the agency tasked to implement
policy. There has been no public or stakeholder consultation about whether
the NDA is the most appropriate body to take forward long term policy implementation.
In fact, as Nirex itself highlighted, a new potential conflict of interest
is created within the NDA between short term goals and long term waste
management. Already serious concern exists about the NDA’s conflict
of interest as a result of its role as a waste producer (via the THORP,
MOX, and MAGNOX operations) and role as plant decommissioner.
Further, DEFRA dilutes CoRWM's recommendation about independent oversight
of the policy implementation process. CoRWM called for an oversight body.
DEFRA commits only to a reconstituted CoRWM as an advisory body. Nothing
in DEFRA's response to CoRWM gives any confidence that the NDA – already
managing conflicting priorities between waste generation and clean up,
and now managing wastes over the short and long term – will be effectively ‘policed’ to
maintain public confidence in its long term policy implementation role.
DEFRA say the environment agencies and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
will do the policing but neither have any remit over the social and ethical
complexities likely to be at the heart of community concerns, nor the establishment
and maintenance of authentic and essential partnership arrangements between
a community and the NDA.
DEFRA are reopening the door to landfill disposal of radioactive waste
even before publication of its review of low level radioactive waste policy
that is expected in early 2007. DEFRA says the NDA will review whether
a safety case could be made for other non-geological disposal of reactor
decommissioning wastes, including on-site, or near-site, disposal. In its
submission to the LLW consultation the NFLA Steering Committee made clear
that any increased dispersal of LLW to local landfill would jeopardize
the use of such sites for conventional waste disposal.
Finally, regarding the proposed voluntarist approach, DEFRA acknowledges
that the practicalities (how to give effect to the concept) have yet to
be fully worked out. It has yet to be fully worked out in local government
and therefore time is needed to think through and consult on workable arrangements.
DEFRA needs to allow sufficient time for consultation on the proposed Framework
on Implementation to enable full democratic local debate and for the commissioning
of expert research and advice if necessary. NFLAs consider 24 weeks is
the minimum practical consultation period. Currently the DEFRA timetable
through to 2008 looks far too tight to allow 24 weeks consultation, but
the MRWS timetable is entirely self imposed, and should be slowed to allow
time to work out the practicalities and ensure the confidence that CoRWM
has generated thus far is maintained.
I am copying this email to: Robert Jackson who co-ordinates the MRWS Implementation
Planning Group; the CoRWM Secretariat; and the NuLeAF Executive Director,
for their respective information and consideration.
Sincerely
Stewart Kemp
NFLA Secretary