There’s no doubting the commitment in Whitehall to try and finalise GDF siting policy before Christmas. But if you ask about timing, you get the same silent stoic smiles revealing the lack of certainty across Whitehall about getting Ministerial decisions on anything at the moment.
As we await policy finalisation, discussion has turned to what a siting process relaunch might look like. There will be those quick to declare the process a failure if no communities come forward within the first few months. However, it is much more likely that it will be many months before we see any sign of active community participation.
We can be confident about this because those most likely to lead their communities into the siting process say so. Local Authority, Trades Union and Civil Society organisations share common observations and concerns that explain the likely longer-timescale scenario. The issues and hurdles they believe still need addressing include:
Public awareness
Awareness of the siting policy and the issues is barely known outside the existing “GDF community” of policymakers, regulators, nuclear sector, and informed observers. Nobody on the community-side feels confident about dropping their neighbours into this debate ‘cold’. There will need to be a lot of non-geographic awareness-raising — ie building understanding of the issues without making any particular community feel they are the object of RWM’s desire.
Delivery body/developer as ‘adversary’
There are worries that RWM’s role as delivery body, or developer, may prejudice public reaction when ‘first contact’ is made with a community. Traditional British ways of managing political discourse or decision-making tend to be adversarial, rather than about building consensus. With the best engagement and goodwill in the world, RWM’s ‘neutrality’ in the debate is going to be questioned. Like SKB in Sweden, RWM are going to have to earn communities’ respect through many years of deeds, not through early promises. Initial awareness-raising and trust-building therefore may be better managed by a visibly independent body — could this be a revamped role for CoRWM?
Partnership proposals not developed in partnership with prospective partners
A widespread feeling that how the Working With Communities policy is to be implemented has not been developed in partnership with those RWM seeks to partner. There is significant knowledge, and much existing activity, within the civil society sector around the development of community partnerships and involving communities in long-term planning and decision-making. On the community-side of the equation there is a sense that little if any of this expertise has been utilised by RWM. Thus there may be need for prolonged discussions with the sector to shape a workable siting partnership framework in which communities have confidence, before any individual community enters into the process.
Engagement funding prior to formal engagement
Currently there is no engagement funding until a community formally enters the siting process. But if a community is to enter the preliminary ‘formative engagement’ phase, it will require some form of advance discussion within that community. Given the current parlous state of local authority and community sector budgets, justifying the allocation of scarce resources to a speculative and highly-contentious proposal may forestall a community coming forward. Unless additional funding is made available.
Some of these issues may be addressed in the final policy, as they were all raised during the pubic consultation. RWM have certainly been investing in their community, engagement and communications function, so they may have solutions we’re not yet aware of.
Whatever happens, speed of movement in the siting process is not to be expected. Nor is it necessarily desirable. Leading anti-nuclear campaigner Prof Andy Blowers has cautioned against a hasty approach. It seems unlikely his fears will be realised. Government may have its policies and processes to move forward, but in a consent and partnership-based process it can only proceed at the pace of its prospective community partners.
Returning from Summer Recess there is talk, apparently as much in expectation as in hope, that RWM will be freed to relaunch the GDF siting process this autumn.
BEIS are understandably non-commital about the prospect. Nobody in Whitehall can be certain of anything as we enter the potentially most chaotic six months in British Parliamentary history.
But the Brexit debate may actually help speed GDF policy decisions. If it does, and the siting process is relaunched, it then begs the question of what that launch looks like. And is RWM ready?
Only the coming weeks will tell whether the following is wishful thinking or wise insight. So let’s focus on what we know, and the options:
The hope is that with the National Policy Statement approved by Parliament, Ministers could take early decisions on the Working With Communities policy and permit RWM to at least start the long process of identifying a site.
However, if RWM is empowered to relaunch the siting process, don’t expect a flurry of initial activity. The GDF is about taking a 30-year look out into the future, at a time the country doesn’t currently have a clear 30-week outlook. It’s hard to imagine a community wanting to discuss its long-term future when the national short-term future is so uncertain.
There are also widespread concerns, as expressed in the GDFWatch stakeholder survey, that RWM is not yet ready to launch the process and engage with communities. These concerns are mostly about the scale of preparatory work envisaged under Section 7.4 of the 2014 White Paper, but which has not yet been done:
“During the period before formal discussions begin, the developer will undertake activities to explain the science and engineering of geological disposal and associated issues, within the context of Government policy, to the general public. The aim of these activities will be to share information and build a greater understanding in support of future, formal discussions with communities and, in the longer term, successful implementation.”
But if Ministers do take final policy decisions and authorise RWM to proceed with implementation this autumn, RWM’s lack of preparedness actually becomes less critical. There is a lot of foundation work to be done which could be steadily rolled-out during the months that we’re all waiting for Brexit to settle.
Can anyone imagine a community wanting to start a long, contentious process while the fabric of the nation is being shaken until a new future does become clear? So while the siting process may start this autumn, next summer is the earliest you might see any significant movement by one or more communities, after the Brexit dust and local election results are settled.
Given the continued cross-party support for the geological disposal programme, we can only hope Ministers do decide that allowing RWM to at least start the long slow siting process this autumn is in the nation’s best interests, regardless of whatever Brexit brings.
GDFWatch prides itself on carrying both pro and anti-GDF views, to encourage debate. We have no intention of stopping this. However, sometimes people are “over-laissez” and “un-fair” with their facts, and in this Trumpian world there will sadly be occasions when it is necessary to point out something as “fake news” (in the sense that it is an untrue assertion, rather than being something we don’t like).
An article that appeared this week in Nation Cymru, entitled The Welsh Government is happy to make us a dumping ground for England’s nuclear waste, requires some simple fact-checking.
The article opens up with the claim that “the Welsh Government has revealed its true colours by offering to bury radioactive waste from England and Northern Ireland in Wales.” As a matter of fact, not opinion, this is simply not true.
Radioactive waste management is a devolved responsibility. The Welsh Government has accepted its responsibilities to ensure the country complies with international law and best practice by establishing an appropriate legal and regulatory framework — from a nationalist perspective you might think that placing Wales alongside sovereign states is something to be commended not condemned.
Furthermore, the Welsh Government has been explicit and consistent in saying that it is not advocating for geological disposal in Wales. Indeed, the Welsh Government has reserved itself a ‘veto’, so that even if a Welsh community was willing to host a GDF, the Senedd could still oppose the project if it considered there was a wider Welsh national interest in blocking construction of the facility.
The article later states that “they [have] not taken on board the reality that if nuclear waste it is buried deep underground the radioactivity can still escape through the water tables.” Again, this is demonstrably incorrect.
As the GDF delivery body, RWM have established criteria which need to be taken into account when assessing the geological suitability of a potential site. The criteria have been the subject of public consultation, peer review, and overseen by an independent group of international experts (whose cross-examination of RWM was held in public and live-streamed online). One of the key criteria is groundwater movement. If there are water tables or other ways in which water passing through the rock can reach the surface, the regulatory authorities will not permit a GDF to be built in such an environment.
The article also states that “anti-nuclear power campaigners have debated the whole question of storage of radioactive waste for decades and we have largely come to the conclusion that it should stay where it is, on-site at the Nuclear Power stations where it was created. That is the safest option.” It is completely true that anti-nuclear campaigners have debated this issue for many years. It is also true that the international scientific community have also examined this issue for many years, and have come to the very opposite conclusion. Even the anti-nuclear Scottish Government seeks (alone amongst every other nuclear country on Earth) ‘near surface’ — rather than deep geological — disposal as a solution.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but now more than ever we need to ensure public debate is based on fact and evidence. There will be plenty to debate once we have specific sites to consider, and the evidence may not always be clear. GDFWatch may well one day find itself on the side of Nation Cymru in many of these debates, but not today, not on the evidence.
The article ends with the comment that “nuclear power … was Humankind’s greatest technological mistake and we should always remember it.” That’s a wholly different debate from how we safely manage the radioactive waste we already have, and one on which we have no further comment.
The failure of nuclear experts and ordinary people to listen to and understand each other is the biggest barrier to solving the world’s radioactive waste problem. That’s an inescapable conclusion from a thought-provoking review of HBO’s new documentary Atomic Homefront in the latest edition of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist.
The public lack trust in the nuclear sector. The sector seems to have an almost institutionalised inability to grasp the social, political and non-technical dimensions of public concern. This means dialogue regularly ends up like a CNN panel discussion with opposing views talking over each other and at cross purposes. A lot of energy and effort to go nowhere, and everyone repeatedly re-trenching to their respective camps, confused and exacerbated.
As Britain and other countries agonisingly address how to permanently dispose of their radioactive waste, resolving this failure of dialogue becomes of paramount importance. The onus is on the nuclear and public sectors to creatively and radically review how they interact with the public. To establish the common ground required to advance this debate.
In his very readable article, Francois Diaz-Maurin of the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) at Stanford University, describes:
Both sides of the debate in the Atomic Homefront film make pertinent and valid points, but they also both perpetuate unfounded myths and misconceptions. Regardless of your thoughts on the film, it does provide (in conjunction with Diaz-Maurin’s analysis) a helpful starting point in identifying how we can better approach and manage the multinational-but-local discussion around safe management of radioactive waste and its permanent disposal.
You can view the 1.5 hour HBO documentary Atomic Homefront online. But recommend that you view it in conjunction with the Diaz-Maurin article.
Three quarters of local government leaders do not think the Government will reshape regional regeneration funds after Brexit, according to a new report.
PwC’s annual The Local State We’re In survey of council chief executives, finance directors and leaders shows 74% are not confident central government will engage with local government in reshaping regional investment and regeneration funds after Britain leaves the EU.
The scale of concern and difficulties facing local authorities indicates that the significant investment funds available through the GDF siting process are potentially of interest not just to disadvantaged communities, but will attract the attention of areas from all parts of the country.
Almost three quarters (72%) of those surveyed said a lack of investment in infrastructure was a key barrier to place-based growth in their area, while 61% identified a lack of influence over skills and 60% said a lack of affordable or suitable housing was also holding back growth.
Survey publisher, PwC’s head of local government Jonathan House, said: “While local councils have done well against an ongoing course of challenges, the cliff edge for some is getting ever closer. With another Spending Review next year, as well as the UK’s formal exit from the EU, the landscape will become incredibly tough – the resilience they have shown so far will be tested to the max.”
Anyone involved in the GDF siting process needs to be aware of sentiment and issues within the local authority sector. Other relevant key findings from the PwC survey include:
A heated row broke out between US Senators during an Appropriations Committee debate on whether to use a site in southeast New Mexico to temporarily store the nation’s nuclear waste, pending a permanent repository site being found.
Lindsey Graham, Senator from South Carolina, tried to block funding for a nuclear waste interim storage programme in retaliation for the Energy Department’s decision to shut the MOX facility at South Carolina’s Savannah River Site. He was supported by New Mexico Senator Tim Udall, but they were lone voices in the debate
Pushing through the proposal for a temporary store Senator Diane Feinstein noted that since the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste permanent storage facility in Nevada was politically dead, funding for temporary waste storage was needed instead, saying:
“We have a bipartisan pathway forward in the Senate, but the House won’t budge. They won’t support any nuclear waste proposal that isn’t Yucca Mountain, and we all know that each party has a senator from Nevada who won’t let Yucca happen. We can’t let another year go by with no movement on nuclear waste.”
However, US Senators were criticised by New Mexico State Senator Gay Kernan, whose district includes the site for the proposed temporary waste facility. She said people that don’t live in her part of New Mexico shouldn’t be telling them what they can and can’t do, and that local people who live in the region understand the economic benefits the nuclear waste industry provides. Kernan said:
“Let southeast New Mexico decide if we want to be a supportive community or not. We may not be, but I think there are many in our area that understand the science and are willing to let the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to do their work. Following the NRC’s environmental impact study we will make a decision as a community.”
This article is a summary of a longer more detailed piece in the Los Alamos Monitor.
In a rare display of bipartisan fervour which united the country the US House of Representatives voted 340-72 to support the proposed geological disposal facility at Yucca Mountain. However, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer immediately made clear that the House’s Bill would be “dead on arrival” in the Senate.
John Shimkus, the Illinois Representative leading the legislative charge, is not disheartened as he believes that in continually pushing the issue and getting people “on the record” will build pressure on the Senate to present their own plans. His optimism is shared by Maria Korsnick, President and CEO of the US Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), who said: “The industry recognises that the House and Senate have differing views on how to reform the used fuel programme. We encourage the two bodies to continue to advance their respective proposals and reach a compromise by the end of the year.”
There are some interesting observations from a British perspective on what is currently happening on the other side of the Atlantic, eg:
A more detailed review of what the US House of Representatives voted for can be found here, but some key points, in addition to funding the next stage of technical assessments of the Yucca Mountain site, include:
Representatives from Nevada, who oppose Yucca, tabled many amendments but only one was accepted for a vote. Their amendment to establish a consent-based siting process for finding a site for a permanent nuclear waste repository was rejected by 80 votes to 332. This does not mean the US Congress is opposed to a consent-based approach, but that this amendment was seen as a way for Nevada to block progress on Yucca.
It would seem that Yucca Mountain will continue to occupy the political agenda in Washington DC, with growing pressure on the Senate to respond to the House’s repeated efforts to deal with the issue. Given mid-term elections, potential change in Senate majority, and the vulnerability of Nevadan Senator Dean Heller, it is unlikely that the Senate Republican leadership will sanction any action until after the November elections.
Yucca will certainly continue to fill the pages and airtime of American media. As can be seen on our international media pages and below, the US media dedicate a lot of space to the issue:
Time Magazine reviews not just the current Bill, but provides a recent political history of the Yucca Mountain project. Story also covered in a wide range of national, regional political and trade media, eg: NBC News, CBS News, ABC News, The Hill, Salt Lake Tribune, Miami Herald, Business Insider, Boston Globe, Santa Fe New Mexican, US News & World Report, Seattle Times, Utility Dive, The Columbian, New Jersey Herald, Newsmax, Roll Call, World Nuclear News, Mail Online, Kallanish Energy; and even as far afield as the New Zealand Herald, Norway’s Bellona, and India’s The Hindu
This story also covered by US local and regional media, commenting on the implications for radioactive waste stored currently at a nuclear site in their area, eg: Arkansas Online; California’s San Diego Union-Tribune, Sacramento Bee, San Clemente Times, CBS Sacramento, KPBS, The Press-Enterprise, Good Day Sacramento, Sierra Wave, San Francisco Gate; Connecticut’s The Day; DC’s Ripon Advance; Georgia’s Augusta Chronicle; Florida’s St Augustine Record; Illinois’ Chicago Tribune; Indiana’s WANE; Maine’s Press Herald; Massachussets’ Patriot Ledger, Mattapoisett Wicked Local, Cape News; Michigan’s Detroit News; Minnesota’s Star Tribune, Republican-Eagle, Mankato Free Press, Post Bulletin; Missouri’s St Louis Post-Dispatch; New Jersey’s Asbury Park Press, Press of Atlantic City; New Mexico’s Albuquerque Journal, Carlsbad Current-Argus; North Carolina’s Star News Online, Winston-Salem Journal; Ohio’s News-Herald; Oregon’s East Oregonian, KDVR ABC News12, Hood River News; Pennsylvania’s Go Erie, Sun Gazette; Tennessee’s Bristol Herald Courier; Texas’ Chron.Com, San Antonio Express-News; Washington’s Tri-City Herald, Daily Herald, NEWStalk; Utah’s St George News; Virginia’s Daily Progress; Wisconsin’s State Journal
Nevada media unsurprisingly unhappy with the vote, as noted in NBC News 3 Las Vegas, Reno Gazette Journal, Sparks Tribune, Mesquite Local News, Las Vegas Review-Journal, CBS Channel 8 Las Vegas, Nevada Independent, ABC Channel 13 Las Vegas, KLAS-TV, KOLO News8, KXL101 FM News, Fox5 Las Vegas. One media outlet even provides a chronology of events at Yucca.
Events in America over the past couple of weeks reveal some stark differences but also many similarities between the US and the UK that can help inform this country’s current debate on sorting out our nuclear waste.
Reading British newspapers you wouldn’t know there was a debate, or that two important public consultations are currently taking place on how we permanently dispose of our nuclear waste. Reading American papers you couldn’t miss the bipartisan fervour behind the proposed solution.
Across the US political spectrum, from The Heritage Foundation on the right, to progressives on the left like satirist John Oliver, there is common agreement that entombing the waste deep underground is the safest option. Called ‘geological disposal’, this is also the international community’s, and UK’s, preferred option. But in Britain the issue is unknown to the majority and opposed by a vocal minority.
Regardless of political affiliation, Americans seem to understand that leaving radioactive waste on the surface is environmentally, economically and ethically unsustainable. This view is in line with the global scientific consensus behind isolating nuclear waste underground far away from the effects of climate change. However, in the UK, opponents still argue that nuclear waste should be kept on the surface indefinitely.
Although US public, political and media opinion may agree on what to do with the waste (bury it deep underground), where the waste should be placed and how you go about deciding that is still a contentious subject. There are lessons to be learned from the American experience which directly feed into the current UK public consultations.
A potential site for the US nuclear waste repository has long been identified at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Despite a bipartisan majority in Congress supporting it, and local people supporting it, the project has stalled for decades primarily because of back-room political deal-making and disputes between different tiers of government. In this regard, the US and UK are very similar.
Disagreement between different tiers of UK government in part explain the delay in finding a site for our own geological disposal facility (GDF). Finding a suitable, safe site takes time. This generation may start the search process, but any final decision will be for the next generation to make. Hence why the current public consultation in the UK proposes a new intergenerational democratic process which is less vulnerable to short-term, electorally driven disputes between politicians. If we are to find a long-term solution to our nuclear waste problem, it will have to be a people-driven process, not a politician-driven process.
Community support and consent is fundamental to the British approach and this is being increasingly realised as important in the Unites States. Last week the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave initial approval to a private sector proposal for a temporary geological repository in New Mexico. Given the ongoing wrangling over Yucca, this new proposed site is being seen as more likely to succeed because it has enthusiastic, broad-based local community, business and political support. The reason for the support is simple: the project requires major local infrastructure investment, will create and sustain large numbers of jobs, and will generate new tax revenues for investment in local public and welfare services.
The opinions and involvement of people living closest to such nuclear waste facilities is critical. The UK proposals out for consultation seek to ensure a nuclear waste facility cannot be imposed on a local community. But as importantly, the proposals want to ensure that any community with an interest in exploring the issues further cannot have their will and wishes thwarted by external political forces.
The people of Nye County, where Yucca Mountain resides, want to explore their options. Whether hosting such a facility could be done safely and how the associated investment might help improve the quality of life for the area’s residents. However, Nevadan state politicians are blocking the process, angering the people of Nye County who feel that their community’s concerns, aspirations and interests are being ignored by a distant urban-based political and commercial elite. One local community leader points out that doing further research on the site does not mean anything will actually be built. His plea is simple: “let’s first have the facts. My grandchildren live here – if it’s not safe, we won’t want it.”
That is the crux of the current UK consultations: how do we create the right environment for an open discussion which may take decades before a conclusion can be reached, if at all. As the US experience shows, there are no quick or easy answers. The issue is so important to the environmental health of our planet, and to the socioeconomic well-being of any affected community. As the community leader in Nye County says: “just sticking your fingers in your ears and saying ‘no’ is not an answer.”
“Our politicians are so weak that they are unable to get across the message that a depot is much safer than the risks to which the entire population is currently exposed. So they prefer to pretend that the problem no longer exists.” That is the view of Italy’s national newspaper Corriere Della Sera
The newspaper is critical of the delays in resolving Italy’s radioactive waste problems. The state-owned company, Sogin, tasked with decommissioning Italy’s nuclear fleet after the 1987 referendum to end nuclear power in Italy has now announced their work will not be completed until until 2036 (originally was scheduled for 2014). The rising costs (from an initial €4.5bn to a projected €7.25bn) are being paid for by Italian consumers in their electricity bills. It is claimed that the bulk of that money has been spent on Sogin’s staff and operating costs maintaining and securing multiple sites, rather than on the actual radioactive waste disposal programme. No site has yet been identified for a permanent disposal facility, largely because of local opposition to any potential sites which have been identified.
In addition to the rising costs for Italian consumers, the newspaper is also concerned about a potential environmental disaster if the waste is not stored and disposed of safely. It references comments from then Italian atomic energy organisation (ENEA) commissioner and Nobel Prize winner Carlo Rubbia that, following a flood at a nuclear site in 2000, that Italy had been “on the verge of a catastrophe of planetary proportions”.
Noting that the site of any radioactive waste disposal facility will require the consent of the local community, the newspaper calls for Italian politicians to press ahead with finding such a site.
For the first time, business, Trade Unions and Local Authority organisations have publicly expressed their combined support for a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF).
Each recognises the transformative effect a GDF would have on a local or regional economy, and the broader contribution it could make to jobs, skills and training, growth, and the export of British expertise to a trillion dollar global marketplace in nuclear decommissioning.
The Institute of Directors (IoD) believes a GDF would boost a local economy, create new opportunities in the UK supply chain, support decarbonisation of energy generation, and reduce long term decommissioning costs to the taxpayer, saying:
“Above ground waste requires additional security, safety, and monitoring at all times. Nor is the waste confined to that from nuclear power stations, but will increasingly be needed for MRI scanners, other medical and industrial equipment and future small modular reactors. Running costs for a Geological Disposal Facility storing the waste 1000 metres below the surface would be significantly lower. Even if the UK never builds another nuclear power station after Hinkley Point C, we will still need a GDF to bring down the cost of nuclear waste.”
The Local Government Association’s (LGA) special interest group, the Nuclear Legacy Advisory Forum (NuLeAF), welcomes the Government’s consultations but makes clear the importance they attach to ensuring local communities are fully engaged and involved in the siting process. A spokesperson said:
“A deep geological repository represents the best current solution for disposing of our high-level radioactive wastes. Such material will pose risks to people and the environment for hundreds of thousands of years, and locking it away underground will remove it from human contact and the risk of accidents.
“Any community hosting it will be providing a national service and this must be recognised. In addition to the employment and the direct economic impact generated by such a large project, we want to see significant additional funds invested in improving infrastructure and environmental quality. Local authorities are the democratically accountable representatives of their communities, with expertise in planning, economic development, and environmental enhancement. They, and the local people they represent, must be at the heart of this development process.”
Rupert Clubb, immediate past President of ADEPT, the professional body of local authority Directors responsible for economic development added:
“Growth is fundamental to thriving communities. We must face up to the elephant in the room and not be another generation that passes this problem onto their children. And in tackling the issue, we create economic and other opportunities for this generation, and keep options open for future generations.”
Trade Unions also focus on the future and next generations, seeing the GDF as a way to develop skills and training, particularly in the engineering sector, which could underpin significant growth opportunities for UK companies, as the trillion dollar global nuclear decommissioning market develops over the next decade. Deputy General Secretary of Prospect, Dai Hudd said:
“Prospect continues to be at the heart of plans and campaigning to maintain our key expertise in this highly developed industry, boosting skills and improving training. A GDF provides an additional focal point for this country to train a new generation in high-skilled, well-paid jobs, to ensure the UK is well-placed to leverage its international reputation and expertise in the global nuclear decommissioning market.”