The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee have announced an inquiry into the draft National Policy Statement for Geological Disposal Infrastructure. They seek written evidence by Friday 15 June 2018.
The inquiry will examine the objectives and scope of the guidance for those considering GDF applications and the framework for granting development consents. The inquiry will also consider how the GDF fits in with the Government’s Industrial Strategy and emphasis on regional growth.
Rachel Reeves MP, Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, said:
“Disposing of our nuclear waste safely is an issue of paramount importance. Decisions on the locations of nuclear disposal sites may have a significant impact on local communities. It’s vital that local planning authorities and the Secretary of State have the right guidance to take these important decisions. We’ll be assessing the suitability of the draft guidance, whether there are any improvements that can be made and what factors should be part of the decision-making process.”
The Committee invites written submissions addressing any or all of the following questions:
You can submit your evidence through the Committee’s website.
BEIS have circulated a short note updating everyone on post-consultation activity. In these GDPR-heady days, BEIS could only email those who attended their regional consultation workshops, so we are making the note available for everyone:
All
It’s been 30 days since the GDF consultations closed. We received more than 200 substantive responses. On the Working with Communities consultation we’re busy analysing these responses and reflecting on what people have said.
On the National Policy Statement (NPS) – we are starting the Parliamentary Scrutiny process. This will run along the following lines:
A high level summary of NPS consultation responses has just been sent to the Select Committee Clerk.
The Select committee will then be looking to publish their Terms of Reference for the enquiry.
A call for written evidence will take place shortly after.
Then witnesses will appear in the oral evidence sessions as part of 4 panels over 2 evidence sessions. Each session will consist of 2 panels of 60 mins each. When we know the dates we will alert you accordingly.
The Select Committee will publish their report in early September.
Other items to be published on the BEIS website in the near future include two reports reviewing the GDF regional workshop activity that took place earlier this year.
GDF Team
NB: The Select Committee have now announced their inquiry and called for written evidence.
Ministers have been told to drop their Local Authority ‘veto’ idea, and to focus on doing more to build community confidence and trust.
That is the headline conclusion from a review of responses to the Working With Communities (WWC) consultation that have already been published. Although not a statistically representative sample of the responses submitted, the opinions come from all corners of society.
LA ‘veto’
All the expert and public evidence received during the policy development phase said that giving any tier of local government a ‘veto’ over the process would undermine the policy and any concept of ‘community consent’. Despite that near unanimous opinion, Ministers still decided to include proposals that would give local authorities the power to block the will of the community.
There has been a consistent and broad-based push back to those proposals in the published consultation responses. GDFWatch believes a veto power would make a mockery of the Government’s own consent-based policy and mean the siting process would be DOA. Community and place-based organisations, while fully recognising the integral role of local authorities, were equally critical of the proposal, eg:
Local authorities themselves seem to disagree over whether they need a veto power. The Local Government Association’s specialised grouping, the Nuclear Legacy Advisory Forum (NuLeAF), representing 130+ local authorities says:
“… local authorities have a range of views as to whether there should be an absolute local authority veto … Many accepted the position set out in the 2014 White Paper; others believe that a clear veto is required but take differing views as to whether that should apply to one or both tiers of local government in two tier areas.”
Where they have answered individually, local authorities have voiced their concerns about having this veto power. For example, Folkestone & Hythe District Council say: “This effective right of veto will limit the chances of the GDF programme being implemented and it is recommended that the 2014 White Paper position be adhered to.”
And those within the nuclear sector who’ve had previous experience of failed siting processes also condemned the proposals. Barlow Geosafety, a consultancy established by one of Europe’s leading geological disposal experts, said: “If we are to avoid repeating history and replaying the unsuccessful experience from MRWS, then any approach that provides a veto, or effective veto, should be forthrightly rejected.”
Even critics of the GDF siting process, like the Cumbria Trust, have their concerns: “If a Community Agreement was structured in such a way that it allows a local authority to carry a motion irrespective of the views of the other members of the Community Partnership, then the Community Partnership becomes an irrelevance. It is not a genuine partnership if one member can overrule the others.”
Building Community Confidence
Perhaps the most recurring theme across responses is the concern for more detail to be provided. There is broad support for the principles of the policy, but uncertainty about how these are to be implemented. This includes residual concerns about the extent of RWM’s powers and responsibilities and how these might impact on its ability to build trust with communities.
Trades Unions, community organisations, industry and local authorities all point to the difficulties in, but necessity of, building confidence amongst communities. To address this issue their proposed solutions encompass:
Critics’ concerns
Although the majority of stakeholder sectors support the broad principles of the proposed consent-based approach, not everyone is enamoured. The Cumbria Trust and the association of Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) articulate wider concerns that this process is not truly transparent, that communities can become trapped within the process against their will, and question whether geological disposal is actually the best way to manage legacy wastes.
Their concerns about the effectiveness of the proposed community consent-based approach are more widely shared. Trades Unions, local authorities and national representative bodies of community sector organisations are concerned about communities being able to engage effectively, exercise democratic control over the process, and be free to walk away at any time. However, unlike the Cumbria Trust or NFLA, they propose solutions on how to ensure these legitimate community concerns are addressed.
Summary
There are many more issues and ideas raised in each of the publicly-available responses. These responses only represent a small proportion of all the consultation responses submitted, so it will be some time before we get a full read out from BEIS, and then what conclusions the Government has come to based on all the responses they have received.
Given the passion and commitment that the published responses reveal, it will be interesting to see if BEIS more actively engage with respondents before final policy decisions are made. The responses are full of ideas on how the process can be improved during the pre-launch and preparatory phases. Since the core of the policy is based on collaboration and partnership with empowered communities, we hope the Government will lead by example and retain an open policy-making approach, working with communities and their representative bodies to co-design the final policy and implementation issues.
______________
UPDATE
This is a selection of those responses we’ve been informed have been made public — please feel free to send us additional links to other published consultation responses, to editorial@gdfwatch.org.uk
If you wish to read individual responses that are already in the public domain, please click on the relevant link:
Working With Communities (response to England & NI consultation)
National Policy Statement
Welsh Government consultation on equivalent to Working With Communities
These responses only reflect a small proportion of all those submitted. They should not be taken as a representative sample, but they do articulate opinion from different societal perspectives. They are provided to help stimulate debate and discussion.
__________________
Nobody is disputing her personal abilities or competence, but the appointment of Lorraine Baldry as the new Chair of Sellafield Limited raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest within the geological disposal programme.
Baldry was also recently appointed Chair of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Council. The Council is an independent group of experts who advise RWM, the GDF delivery body, on how to best progress the geological disposal programme. RWM is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) — Sellafield Limited is also a wholly-owned subsidiary of the NDA. This means Baldry will be advising RWM on geological disposal, while also running the company which currently owns most of the waste destined for geological disposal and has a very vested interest in the GDF.
Potential conflicts of interest between the NDA and RWM were raised by Minister’s own independent expert advisors, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) in their most recent Annual Report in January 2018. In their report they say:
“CoRWM remains concerned about the dependence of RWM on its parent body and is strongly of the opinion that a GDF delivery organisation should be separate from its major customer. The Committee also has concerns relating to the suggestions that consideration is being given to moving the SRO into the NDA. At this stage, CoRWM does not believe that the SRO should be located within the NDA because it represents poor governance and exposes the NDA to criticisms around conflicts of interest.”
The “SRO” is the ‘Senior Responsible Officer’ for the project, and currently resides in BEIS. CoRWM are expressing concern that placing all authority in NDA as both the developer and prime customer of the GDF creates the potential for real or perceived conflicts of interest.
Baldry may well be the best person for the Sellafield job, but it begs the question whether it is still appropriate for her to to continue in her RWM role. As the published responses to this week’s public consultations on geological disposal make clear, trust and transparency are critical to the geological disposal programme. RWM and the NDA’s response to this challenge will reveal something of their understanding of how transparency helps build trust.
Sir John Armitt has called for more proactive public engagement on infrastructure projects. The new Chair of the The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) was speaking at publication of the NIC’s first Annual Monitoring Report.
Sir John is reported saying there is a “need for professions who deliver infrastructure to realise that if they want their work to be accepted they have to get out there and explain, in words that are plain English, what it is about and why it is necessary.”
The Report basically observes that Government needs to do more, more urgently, if the UK is to retain international economic competitiveness. Sir John also regretfully noted that a key issue is short-term political decision-making, saying: “It is a sad thing about politics, isn’t it? The short-termism. At the end of the day ministers know they have an election coming two or three years down the line and will be remembered by what costs went up and which went down.”
Avoiding the pitfalls of political short-termism is one of the key proposals in the Working With Communities (WWC) public consultation. However, absent from the NIC Report is any mention of the consultations or Geological Disposal Facility (GDF). The NIC is in the early stages of its life, so perhaps it’s not surprising that it has yet to embrace the GDF. But this is a matter which needs addressing sooner rather than later.
The GDF is important to the country and the work of the Infrastructure Commission for several reasons:
Finding a site to dispose of our radioactive waste is a contentious issue. But finding a site is vital to our long-term national interests. It can only be achieved by having open honest discussions with fellow citizens, and creating a decision-making framework that can take a long-term view, unhurried by electoral fluctuation, because it involves all parts of the community working in partnership. We look forward to the NIC’s greater engagement in the GDF process.
Opening up your plans to independent international expert review and assessment has become a cornerstone of geological disposal programmes around the world. It provides reassurance nationally and internationally that:
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have recently published an international peer review of South Korea’s geological disposal programme. South Korea is still developing its policy on how to find a site, and is going through a process of public engagement and consultation to determine an appropriate consent-based approach. No site has yet been identified in Korea. However, the Koreans have been conducting significant research into “pyro-processing” of spent fuel.
Potentially, pyro-processing would allow more spent fuel to be recycled and re-used. This would reduce both the volumes and the heat of the waste requiring permanent disposal in a repository (aka GDF). The IAEA notes that the research is still ongoing, and pyro-processing is not yet commercially viable. However, the heat and volume reductions could mean that a repository might need to be only one-tenth the size currently required.
The South Koreans asked the IAEA to convene a panel of experts to review their hypothetical plans for a repository if pyro-processed waste was the primary material being disposed of in the underground facility. The comprehensive IAEA Expert Report is not controversial, commends the Koreans for their approach, research and plans, and suggests areas where further research and investigation would be helpful.
Following publication of CoRWM’s Annual Report (see story below), the Government’s response has now been published.
Nothing to surprise in the response, but the Government did provide a little more information on the public outputs of the national geological screening exercise, saying:
“The National Geological Screening outputs will not definitively rule all areas as either ‘suitable’
or ‘unsuitable’ . At the simplest level there will be plain English summaries of the geological information for each region, illustrated with maps showing areas that may include volumes of appropriate
lower strength sedimentary rocks (e.g. clay), higher strength rock (e.g. granite) or evaporite
rocks (e.g. salt) at the appropriate depths for a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF). These will
be accompanied by more detailed regional and sub-regional reports that explain the
relationship of the basic geological information to the safety of a GDF in each area. These will
also be supported by short, explanatory video clips intended to explain technical terms for nongeologists.”
Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) have indicated that these guides are likely to be published with a suite of other relevant information when they relaunch the siting process.
______
The Annual Report of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) has been published. CoRWM is an independent panel of experts which monitors the Government’s geological disposal programme and how it is being implemented by the appointed delivery body, Radioactive Waste Management (RWM). You can access the 2016/17 Annual Report here.
Although CoRWM notes that good progress has generally been made, it has a number of reservations and recommendations. Some of these are technical or administrative, but others are of particular concern to GDFWatch, and are matters which will need closer scrutiny during 2018. These include:
Neither the Government nor RWM have yet responded to CoRWM’s Annual Report. We will be closely watching how they do respond and address the issues above, and will keep you updated.
A meeting between local community leaders and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington DC this week has angered State-level officials in Nevada.
The row yet again brings to the surface the tensions between the local community in Nye County, which wants to explore how the proposed Yucca Mountain geological disposal facility might benefit their community, and State-level politicians who want no discussions of any kind about the facility.
GDFWatch has previously reported on Nye County’s frustrations, and explored how such disagreements between different tiers of government are central to the UK’s current public consultations on how communities should be involved in deciding whether to host a GDF.
Nevada State officials have challenged the legality of the meeting and accused Nye County community leaders of ‘going behind the State’s back’. Dan Schinhofen of Nye County said the state’s objection were another waste of taxpayers’ money.
It is hard to ignore the irony of Nevada State’s support for a “community consent-based” approach, while denying the clearly expressed consent of the community most affected by the Yucca Mountain project!
The Belgian Government this week received two recommendations: that geological disposal was the best way to dispose of the country’s most radioactive waste, and that the best way to determine where the waste was geologically disposed would be through a collective national discussion and decision.
The recommendations come from ONDRAF, Belgium’s nuclear waste management organisation, as they published their latest updated estimates of the costs of dismantling Belgium’s nuclear facilities and safely disposing of the different types of radioactive waste.
Belgium has already decided to phase out nuclear power (anticipated by 2025), and is now working through how to manage that process. Most radioactive waste, by volume, will be disposed at a new surface facility in Dessel, which is proceeding with the support of the local community. However, some waste remains hazardous for many thousands of years, and ONDRAF’s recommendation that that waste needs to be disposed in a deep geological facility is in line with the international approach. ONDRAF’s Chief Executive Marc Demarche believes that a broadly-based societal discussion is required to secure public support:
“The management of radioactive waste is a subject that affects the entire Belgian population. Without societal support, even the strongest technical solution is impossible to defend. This waste is there, it’s a reality. All stakeholders need to be aware of their role in finding a solution to this problem. ONDRAF is committed to informing and involving all stakeholders, so that everyone can agree on a safe, scientifically supported, and technically and financially feasible solution for this generation and all those to come.”
It is not yet known when the Belgian Government will make its decision, but they are expected to approve the launch of a national public discussion. Further information can be found at ONDRAF’s website.
With the deadline for responses to the Government’s two GDF consultations approaching, it appears that there is a lot of discussion around three particular areas:
That is not to say there are not a wider range of issues under discussion, and BEIS have now produced FAQ sheets in response to a number of common and recurring questions raised at their regional consultation workshops. The Working With Communities FAQ sheet produced by BEIS can be found by clicking on the link, and the National Policy Statement FAQ sheet can be accessed here.
A number of organisations, eg the Cumbria Trust, Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) and Barlow Geosafety have already published their responses to the Working With Communities consultation. There are significant similarities between the Cumbria Trust and NFLA responses, expressing concerns that the process is potentially undemocratic by locking communities into a process from which they cannot actually escape. Such concerns are not shared by Barlow Geosafety, which has the exact opposite worry that Local Authorities may have a ‘veto’ which would undermine the democratic principles of community consent.
The Barlow Geosafety view on local authority ‘veto’ power would, from discussions with a wide range of stakeholders at the workshops and outside, appear to be the more common concern. GDFWatch are certainly concerned that any form of ‘veto’ power would fundamentally make the consent-based approach inoperable. Local Authorities also seem divided, with many concerned that such a ‘veto’ would simply lead to inertia.
It will be interesting to see the full range of views when responses are finally published. You are urged to ensure that your opinion is submitted by the 11.45pm deadline on Thursday 19 April. Instructions on how to submit your response can be found on the BEIS website.