DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
COMMITTEE ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT
2009-10
DRAFT 3
27 May 2010
This document does not present the views of the Committee on Radioactive Waste
Management nor can it be taken to present the views of its authors. It is a draft paper
to inform Committee deliberations and both the authors and the whole Committee
may adopt different views and draw entirely different conclusions after further
consideration and debate.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 1 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION BY THE CHAIR ......................................................................................... 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 5
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 9
2. HOW CoRWM WORKS ................................................................................................. 9
CoRWM’s Principles .......................................................................................................... 9
Scrutiny ........................................................................................................................... 10
Formulation of Advice ...................................................................................................... 10
Public and Stakeholder Engagement ............................................................................... 10
Use of International Experience ....................................................................................... 11
CoRWM Review of Its Effectiveness ............................................................................... 12
3. SCRUTINY AND ADVICE ON INTERIM STORAGE .................................................... 13
The Interim Storage Tasks and CoRWM’s Approach ....................................................... 13
Management of Higher Activity Wastes UK-Wide ............................................................ 15
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority ............................................................................. 15
Regulatory Developments ............................................................................................ 16
Strategic Co-ordination ................................................................................................ 16
Management of Spent Fuels, Plutonium and Uranium ..................................................... 17
Spent Fuels .................................................................................................................. 17
Plutonium ..................................................................................................................... 17
Uranium ....................................................................................................................... 17
Strategic Co-ordination ................................................................................................ 18
Transport ......................................................................................................................... 18
Provision of Information to the Public .............................................................................. 18
Information on HAW Management ............................................................................... 18
Security Information ..................................................................................................... 19
Development of Scottish Government HAW Management Policy .................................... 19
4. SCRUTINY AND ADVICE ON GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL ........................................... 20
The Geological Disposal Tasks and CoRWM’s Approach ................................................ 20
2009 Report to Government on Geological Disposal ....................................................... 21
Voluntarism and Partnership ........................................................................................... 22
Increasing the Awareness of Communities to the Invitation to Participate .................... 22
Government and NDA Engagement in West Cumbria .................................................. 22
Site Assessment .............................................................................................................. 23
Screening Out of Unsuitable Areas .............................................................................. 23
Identifying Sites for Desk-Based Studies ..................................................................... 24
Site Characterisation .................................................................................................... 25
NDA Implementation Planning ......................................................................................... 25
5. SCRUTINY AND ADVICE ON OTHER TOPICS .......................................................... 26
Research and Development ............................................................................................ 26
The R&D Tasks and CoRWM’s Approach .................................................................... 26
2009 Report to Government on R&D ........................................................................... 27
NDA R&D..................................................................................................................... 28
Research Councils ....................................................................................................... 29
New Build Wastes ........................................................................................................... 30
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 2 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
The New Build Wastes Task and CoRWM’s Approach ................................................ 30
CoRWM’s Position on New Build Wastes..................................................................... 31
CoRWM’s Response to the NPS Consultation ............................................................. 31
Scrutiny of the PSE of Various Organisations .................................................................. 32
The PSE Scrutiny Tasks and CoRWM’s Approach ...................................................... 32
Liaison on Providing Information to the Public .............................................................. 33
Questionnaire on PSE.................................................................................................. 33
Scrutiny of PSE Related to Geological Disposal........................................................... 33
Scrutiny of PSE on Various Aspects of HAW Management .......................................... 34
6. IMPACTS OF CoRWM’s SCRUTINY AND ADVICE .................................................... 35
Actions taken in Response to CoRWM Recommendations.............................................. 35
Recommendations in CoRWM’s 2009 Report on Interim Storage ................................ 35
Recommendations in CoRWM’s 2009 Report on Geological Disposal ......................... 36
Recommendations in CoRWM’s 2009 Report on R&D ................................................. 37
Other Impacts of CoRWM’s Scrutiny and Advice ............................................................. 37
Influence on Development of Government Policy ......................................................... 37
Influence on the Implementation of Government Policy................................................ 38
Promoting Understanding of Issues ............................................................................. 38
7. HOUSE OF LORDS INQUIRY ..................................................................................... 38
8. STATUS OF ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF HAW ... 39
Treatment, Packaging, Storage and Disposal .................................................................. 39
Treatment and Packaging ............................................................................................ 39
Storage ........................................................................................................................ 40
Transport ..................................................................................................................... 40
Disposal .......................................................................................................................... 40
Geological Disposal ..................................................................................................... 40
Near-Surface Disposal ................................................................................................. 41
9. 2010-11 WORK PROGRAMME ................................................................................... 41
10.
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 43
CoRWM Documents ........................................................................................................ 43
Other Documents ............................................................................................................ 46
Annexes A
Terms of Reference...................................................................................................49
B
CoRWM Members......................................................................................................54
C
CoRWM Expenditure 2009-10...................................................................................58
D
Recommendations in CoRWM’s 2009 Reports to Government.................................59
E
Glossary and Acronym List........................................................................................62
Further Information.............................................................................................................73
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 3 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
INTRODUCTION BY THE CHAIR
I am pleased to present CoRWM’s annual report for 2009-10 to sponsor Ministers, the
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and Environment Ministers in Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland.
This is the sixth CoRWM Annual Report but the first in a revised format. It summarises the
outcomes of CoRWM’s scrutiny and advice work during the year. It also contains the
Committee’s views on the current status of arrangements and plans for the long-term
management of higher activity radioactive wastes in the UK.
2009-10 was a busy year for CoRWM. The Committee submitted two major reports to
Government, one on geological disposal and one on research and development. It
responded to two Government consultations: the UK Government consultation on its draft
National Policy Statements for energy infrastructure and the Scottish Government
consultation on its policy for the management of higher activity wastes. In addition, CoRWM
gave evidence to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee during its inquiry
into CoRWM’s performance since its reconstitution in 2007 and the appropriateness of its
current remit.
CoRWM has begun its work for 2010-11. Its priorities for scrutiny and advice this year are:
•
UK Government work to implement its policy on the long-term management of
higher activity wastes
•
Scottish Government development of its policy on the management of higher
activity wastes and of proposals for its implementation
•
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority development of its second Strategy (NDA
Strategy II)
•
NDA work on the implementation of geological disposal.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 4 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. This is the sixth annual report of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management
(CoRWM ) but the first in a revised format. It covers the Committee’s work during the
period April 2009 to March 2010. The report describes how CoRWM works and
summarises its activities during the year and their outcomes.
CoRWM’s Remit and How it Fulfils It
2. CoRWM’s remit is to provide independent scrutiny and advice on the long-term
management of radioactive wastes. It focuses on higher activity wastes (HAW),
i.e. intermediate level wastes (ILW) and high level waste (HLW). Its work also includes spent
nuclear fuels, plutonium and uranic materials that are not considered to be wastes at
present but may be in the future.
3. The Committee scrutinises the work of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA)
and other organisations on all the steps necessary for the long-term management of
HAW in the UK. These steps will typically include treatment, storage, transport and
disposal. One of its main tasks is to scrutinise UK Government and NDA plans and
programmes for geological disposal of HAW. It also scrutinises the work of the Scottish
Government on developing and implementing its policy of near-surface, near-site storage
and disposal of HAW. Much of the work that the Committee scrutinises is within the
Government’s Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) programme.
4. CoRWM has a set of five guiding principles that it applies in its work. These include
commitments to openness and transparency and to upholding the public interest. It
carries out its scrutiny by holding meetings with NDA, Government officials, regulators
and various groups of stakeholders, and by reviewing documents that these
organisations produce. It visits one or more nuclear sites each year, where it sees
radioactive waste management facilities, has discussions with site staff and holds a
public meeting.
5. The Committee provides both informal and formal advice to Government. In the case of
formal advice it usually consults its stakeholders to gather and check evidence, to inform
itself of their views and to obtain their comments on its proposed advice. Such
consultations are part of the public and stakeholder engagement (PSE) that CoRWM
carries out to support its work programme. Its PSE is aimed at promoting understanding
of radioactive waste management issues, as well as seeking and discussing views.
6. During 2009-10 CoRWM carried out its first review of its own effectiveness. Based on
views from its stakeholders and other evidence, the Committee judged that it had
performed reasonably well on criteria of being a trusted and authoritative source of
advice, and of delivering its work programme to a high standard and to time and budget.
On the criterion of having a demonstrable, positive effect on the management of the UK’s
HAW, the view of most stakeholders was that it was too soon after CoRWM’s
reconstitution in late 2007 to form a judgement.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 5 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
Scrutiny and Advice on Interim Storage
7. CoRWM’s work under the heading of interim storage covers the treatment, packaging,
storage and transport of HAW and the management of spent fuels, plutonium and
uranium. In 2009-10 its main tasks on interim storage were:
•
to scrutinise the NDA’s development of its Topic Strategies for HAW, spent fuels,
plutonium and uranic materials
•
to advise the Scottish Government on development of its policy for the
management of HAW
•
to monitor actions taken in response to CoRWM’s 2009 report to Government on
interim storage (CoRWM doc. 2500).
8. The NDA’s Topic Strategies are at various stages of development and, in some cases,
implementation. Although progress is being made on the HAW Topic Strategy, CoRWM
notes that there are issues, such as consolidation of storage and treatment on fewer
sites, that seem to lack strategic direction from NDA. For spent fuels there are key
decisions to be made over the next few years on how much AGR fuel to reprocess and
on how and where to treat the many types of exotic fuels (
i.e. non-standard fuels, mainly
from research reactors that closed long ago).
9. CoRWM gave the Scottish Government informal advice during the preparations for the
public consultation on its HAW management policy, then responded formally to the
consultation. The informal advice resulted in a lengthening of the preparatory period,
allowing fuller consideration of the outcomes of the Strategic Environmental Assessment
(SEA). The Scottish Government is at present (May 2010) considering the consultation
responses.
10. CoRWM’s 2009 report to Government on interim storage (CoRWM doc. 2500) contained
a recommendation about improving strategic co-ordination, which Government accepted.
However, over a year after the report was published, Government has yet to make any
specific proposals for improvement. There has also been little action on CoRWM’s
recommendations about making appropriate information available to the public about
HAW management and about how the security of storage facilities is assured. After
discussion with the regulators, CoRWM itself published information about how new
stores for spent fuel are being designed to mitigate the consequences of 9/11 style
terrorist attacks.
Scrutiny and Advice on Geological Disposal
11. CoRWM’s 2009-10 tasks on geological disposal included:
•
completion of its report to Government on geological disposal and monitoring of
actions taken on the recommendations in the report
•
scrutiny and advice on the voluntarism and partnership approach to siting of a
geological disposal facility (GDF)
•
scrutiny and advice on assessing potential GDF sites
•
scrutiny of NDA’s work on implementation of geological disposal and
development of a generic safety case for a geological disposal system.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 6 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
12. CoRWM’s report to Government on geological disposal (CoRWM doc. 2550) was
submitted in July 2009. Government responded in November 2009. The response stated
that Government largely agreed with CoRWM’s recommendations and set out the work
in progress and planned to address them.
13. During the year CoRWM encouraged the UK Government to increase the awareness
amongst local authorities of its invitation to express an interest in entering without
commitment discussions about the possibility of hosting a GDF. The Government carried
out various actions to increase awareness, including attending local government
conferences and sending a Ministerial letter.
14. In the one area that has so far expressed an interest, CoRWM attended meetings of the
West Cumbria MRWS Partnership, as an observer. It noted that some of the
recommendations in CoRWM’s 2009 report on geological disposal (CoRWM doc. 2550)
are being addressed by the Partnership, with input from Government where appropriate.
CoRWM advised the Partnership on the peer review of the study to be carried out by the
British Geological Survey (BGS) to screen out areas in West Cumbria that are
geologically unsuitable for a GDF.
15. CoRWM discussed with NDA the methodology that might be used to identify sites for
desk-based study within areas that have not been screened out. The Committee
commented on a draft of NDA’s Planning for Implementation document. It followed up its
recommendation about the need to assess a wide range of geological disposal concepts
by learning more about NDA’s assessment of generic concepts and plans for site
specific optimisation.
Scrutiny and Advice on Research and Development
16. CoRWM’s main work on research and development (R&D) was to complete its report to
Government on national R&D for interim storage and geological disposal of HAW and
management of nuclear materials (CoRWM doc. 2543). The report contains six
recommendations, including one on the need for strategic co-ordination of UK R&D for
HAW management between NDA, the rest of the nuclear industry, the regulators and the
Research Councils. The report was submitted to Government in October 2009; a
response is awaited.
17. During the year CoRWM also held discussions with NDA about all its R&D relevant to
HAW management and scrutinised the development of the NDA geological disposal
R&D programme. In addition, the Committee had contacts with the Natural Environment
Research Council (NERC) about its plans for future funding of research on radioactive
waste management. CoRWM visited BGS, which is funded by NERC, to learn about its
research and discuss its plans for the screening work in West Cumbria (para. 14).
Scrutiny and Advice on Radioactive Wastes from New Nuclear Power Stations
18. Most of CoRWM’s work on HAW from new nuclear power stations (“new build wastes”)
was related to the radioactive waste aspects of the Government’s draft National Policy
Statement (NPS) on energy infrastructure. The Committee made informal comments on
drafts of documents for the public consultation on the NPS; these were confined to
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 7 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
factual accuracy and clarity of expression. It then responded formally to the consultation
and concurrently issued a separate statement of its position on new build wastes.
19. CoRWM’s response to the NPS consultation covered issues including whether there will
be effective arrangements for managing new build wastes and the possible impact of the
NPS on the long-term management of existing HAW. The CoRWM position statement
reiterated that the Committee is neither for nor against new nuclear power stations. It
stated that CoRWM’s future work on new build wastes will consist of scrutiny and advice
on plans to ensure that, if new build wastes are created, they are safely and securely
managed, and minimising adverse impacts of new build waste management on the
management of existing wastes.
Scrutiny and Advice on Public and Stakeholder Engagement
20. CoRWM scrutinises the PSE activities of Government, NDA, other nuclear industry
organisations and the regulators related to the long-term management of HAW. It holds
discussions with various organisations about their PSE and observes PSE in practice by
attending events such as stakeholder workshops on particular topics. It also monitors co-
ordination of PSE related to radioactive waste management amongst the organisations
involved.
21. Early in 2010, CoRWM sent a questionnaire to Government, NDA and other
organisations about their PSE activities. This included questions about how each
organisation draws up an engagement strategy and reviews its effectiveness. The
responses to the questionnaire will be evaluated in 2010-11 and included in a position
paper on PSE. This paper will include the results of CoRWM’s scrutiny of PSE in 2009
and 2010, and the results of its monitoring of Government action on CoRWM’s
recommendation to improve co-ordination of PSE.
Status of UK Arrangements and Plans for Management of Higher Activity Wastes
22. Based on its scrutiny work in 2009-10, CoRWM has the following observations about the
status of plans for managing HAW in the UK.
23. Only about 30% of existing UK ILW has been treated and packaged to make it suitable
for longer term storage and eventual disposal. Of the remaining 70%, some is held in old
facilities and is not in stable forms. It is important that such ILW is retrieved as soon as is
practicable, and is treated, packaged and placed in modern stores. CoRWM welcomes
NDA statements about the priority it is giving to retrieval of HAW from high hazard legacy
facilities, especially at Sellafield. However, the rate of progress is not yet fast enough.
24. Although the current plans for HAW storage are adequate, the approach to storage is
fragmented and too few sites have contingency plans. A more strategic approach is
required.
25. The implementation of geological disposal is proceeding at an appropriate pace. The
rate of progress of the voluntary approach to GDF siting must be determined by the
willingness of the volunteering communities to proceed. It is also important to allow
sufficient time for technical work, particularly site characterisation, GDF design and R&D.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 8 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
1. INTRODUCTION
1. This is the sixth CoRWM Annual Report but the first in a revised format. It covers the
Committee’s work in the period from April 2009 to March 2010.
2. CoRWM’s remit is given in its Terms of Reference (Annex A). These state that:
"... 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 Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’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.”
3. The current membership of CoRWM is given in Annex B. Its sponsors are the
Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) for the UK Government, the
Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Department of the
Environment in Northern Ireland.
4. The Committee’s work programme for 2009-10 (CoRWM doc. 2515.2) was agreed with
its sponsors early in 2009-10. It was carried out within CoRWM’s agreed budget (Annex
C).
5. Section 2 of this report is about CoRWM’s working methods. Sections 3-6 describe the
results of CoRWM’s scrutiny and advice work during 2009-10. Section 7 of the report is
about the inquiry carried out by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee
to assess how CoRWM has performed since its reconstitution in 2007 (House of Lords,
2010a). Section 8 gives the Committee’s views on the current status of arrangements
and plans for the long-term management of higher activity wastes (HAW) in the UK.
Section 9 contains information about CoRWM’s work programme for 2010-11.
2. HOW CoRWM WORKS
CoRWM’s Principles
6. CoRWM has five guiding principles that it applies in its work (CoRWM doc. 2248). These
principles are about:
•
openness and transparency
•
upholding the public interest
•
fairness
•
a safe and sustainable environment
•
working efficiently and effectively.
7. The Committee also has a transparency policy and a publication scheme (CoRWM doc.
2249).
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 9 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
Scrutiny
8. CoRWM scrutinises the work of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), and
other organisations that own or produce HAW, on all the steps necessary for the long-
term management of these wastes. These steps will typically include treatment, storage,
transport and disposal, either in a geological disposal facility (GDF) or a near-surface
disposal facility. The Committee scrutinises the work of the UK Government and NDA on
the delivery of geological disposal and the work of the Scottish Government on
developing its policy for the management of HAW. Much of the work that the Committee
scrutinises is within the Government’s Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS)
programme (Defra
et al., 2008).
9. CoRWM carries out its scrutiny by holding meetings with NDA, Government officials,
regulators and various groups of stakeholders, and by reviewing documents that these
organisations produce. The Committee visits one or more nuclear sites each year, where
it holds discussions with site managers and staff and sees radioactive waste
management facilities. During the visit it usually holds a meeting with local people. These
meetings are open to the public and participants typically include members of the Site
Stakeholder Group (or its equivalent), elected representatives and local residents.
CoRWM also monitors developments in other countries, with the objective of checking
that the UK is making full use of international experience.
Formulation of Advice
10. All CoRWM’s formal advice is to Government. It is mostly given in reports on particular
topics (
e.g. CoRWM doc. 2550) but can also be in shorter documents such as position
papers (
e.g. CoRWM docs. 2420, 2558) and responses to consultations (
e.g. CoRWM
docs. 2748, 2795). Members of the Committee also give informal advice, both verbally
and in writing, to Government, NDA and others.
11. The procedures CoRWM uses to formulate its advice are summarised in a document
produced in March 2010 (CoRWM doc. 2806). The methods it uses to gather and check
the evidence that underlies its advice depend on whether the advice is formal or
informal. In the case of formal advice CoRWM usually consults its stakeholders, firstly to
inform itself of their views and secondly to obtain their comments on its proposed advice
(CoRWM doc. 2806). The views expressed in CoRWM’s documents are always the
Committee’s own. It has a quality control procedure for its documents (CoRWM doc.
2771).
Public and Stakeholder Engagement
12. CoRWM undertakes public and stakeholder engagement (PSE) to support its work
programme. In 2009-10 its PSE focused on stakeholders. It included meetings with
various groups and consultation on draft documents,
via the website and an e-bulletin. In
general, the Committee uses PSE to:
•
assemble evidence on particular topics
•
obtain the views of stakeholders and the public on these topics
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 10 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
•
check the factual accuracy of its draft documents
•
seek comments on its proposed advice.
13. In addition, CoRWM asks stakeholders and the public for their views on the Committee’s
performance and ways of working (para. 23).
14. In 2009-10 CoRWM held two stakeholder workshops, one to discuss the draft of its
report to Government on geological disposal and one to discuss the draft report to
Government on research and development (CoRWM docs. 2543, 2550, 2593, 2677). It
held discussions with a range of stakeholders during its work on the Scottish
Government policy for HAW management (para. 27). It met local stakeholders when it
visited the nuclear power stations at Hunterston and Hinkley Point (CoRWM docs. 2802,
2809).
15. CoRWM had considered convening a Citizen’s Panel as part of its engagement of the
public on progress with the implementation of geological disposal (Task 14 in CoRWM
doc. 2515.2). It became clear during 2009-10 that this would not be appropriate at this
early stage.
16. The CoRWM web site (www.corwm.org.uk) was redesigned in 2008 after the Committee
was reconstituted. However, user feedback and developments in peer sites led to a
decision to improve the site further and ensure that it met all current standards for
accessibility and usability. In addition, the DECC MRWS website and the NDA website
now contain extensive background information on radioactive waste management, so the
CoRWM site needs to concentrate on the Committee’s work.
17. CoRWM worked with specialist website experts from DECC, the Government’s Central
Office of Information (COI) and an external company. An expert review of the existing
site and seven other peer sites was carried out, which was followed by detailed
interviews with ten stakeholders from a variety of backgrounds. Draft wireframes and
content of key web pages were developed and again tested with stakeholders. the
content was then reviewed by a specialist copy editor to ensure that the copy was clear,
accessible and met content writing guidelines. The new website will be launched in
summer 2010.
Use of International Experience
18. CoRWM uses several means to keep in touch with international developments. Through
the literature and websites it monitors progress in various countries on the long-term
management of HAW, especially progress in implementing geological disposal. It also
monitors the relevant work of the European Commission, the Nuclear Energy Agency
(NEA) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). CoRWM members gather
information when they visit other countries in the normal course of their work. In addition,
CoRWM has discussions with representatives of other countries’ Governments,
regulators and waste management organisations (
e.g. CoRWM docs. 2664, 2823).
19. In 2009 CoRWM held a meeting in London with the USA’s Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board (NWTRB) (CoRWM doc. 2725). NWTRB is an independent agency that
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 11 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
reports to Congress on Department of Energy work on the long-term management of
high level waste (HLW) and spent fuels. CoRWM’s discussions with NWTRB covered the
pre-disposal management and geological disposal of HLW and spent fuels. CoRWM was
particularly interested in lessons learned at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), an
operating GDF for “transuranic” (TRU) wastes1, and at Yucca Mountain, a site that was
investigated for a GDF to hold all US spent fuel. It also heard about NWTRB work since
the cancellation of the Yucca Mountain project and about the appointment of a “Blue
Ribbon Commission” (CoRWM doc. 2725). The Commission is conducting a
comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle,
including all the alternatives for the storage, processing and disposal of civil and defence
spent fuel, HLW and materials derived from nuclear activities.2
20. CoRWM has followed developments in the European Union COWAM (Community Waste
Management) in Practice project. This is about sharing good practice in involving local
communities in radioactive waste management (
www.cowam.com). CoRWM attended
the September 2009 meeting of UK participants in the project, which discussed
community benefits packages, a national case study of community involvement and
needs for further research.
21. CoRWM has also followed developments in China, which has plans to build more than
20 new nuclear power stations in the next decade or so and to reprocess spent fuel. A
CoRWM member visited China twice (once with the IAEA and once with a UK team
including NDA and National Nuclear Laboratory participants) to examine the
Government’s waste management strategy and plans. Several potential sites for a GDF
have been identified, including one in granite in the Gobi desert where borehole drilling
sections have already been taken. An underground rock laboratory is being designed
and is planned to be in operation by 2020. While this site is the most advanced, the
Chinese Government desires another site (with different rock, probably clay) to also
undergo full sub-surface characterisation so that the sites can be compared and a
decision on which to use taken on technical grounds. The intention is that a GDF will be
operational by about 2050.
CoRWM Review of Its Effectiveness
22. In March 2009 CoRWM agreed a process to review its effectiveness (CoRWM doc.2555)
and adopted the following criteria by which it would judge its success:
•
CoRWM is a trusted and authoritative source of advice
•
CoRWM has carried out its work to a high standard and to time and budget
•
CoRWM has had a demonstrable positive effect on the management of the UK’s
HAW.
23. Evidence for the review of effectiveness was gathered during the year. It took the form of
programme progress reports and budget reports to plenary meetings, feedback from
1 TRU waste is a term used mainly in the USA. In UK terminology TRU wastes are long-lived,
actinide-containing intermediate level wastes, such as plutonium contaminated materials.
2 There is further information on the Commission’s website
http://brc.gov. It is due to produce an
interim report in mid-2011 and a final report early in 2012.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 12 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
questionnaires circulated to stakeholders and consideration of Government responses to
recommendations in the Committee’s reports on interim storage (CoRWM doc. 2500)
and geological disposal (CoRWM doc. 2550). Account was also taken of evidence
submitted by various organisations to the House of Lords Science and Technology
Committee inquiry (Section 7) and the findings of that inquiry (House of Lords, 2010a).
The impacts of CoRWM’s scrutiny and advice are dealt with in Section 6.
24. CoRWM reviewed its effectiveness at its plenary meeting in April 2010 (CoRWM
doc.2798). The key points from the review were:
•
Feedback from questionnaires was generally positive. However, a number of
stakeholders stated that it was too soon to assess whether CoRWM has had a
demonstrable positive effect on the management of HAW. This was reflected in
evidence to the House of Lords inquiry (House of Lords, 2010a).
•
The work programme for 2009-10 was largely completed and this was done within
budget. There is a need, however, for better detailed work programming to ensure
that adequate time is always allowed for factual checking and PSE on draft
documents.
•
The proposed 2010-13 work programme (CoRWM doc. 2800) was submitted to
Government for approval in March 2010 and is more focused than previous years.
This reflected experience of previous year’s programmes and feedback from
stakeholders that programmes had been too broad and resources somewhat
stretched.
•
CoRWM had improved its working practices during the year, particularly by devising
and applying quality control procedures for documents (CoRWM docs. 2539, 2771)
and clarifying how it formulates its various types of advice (paras 10-11; CoRWM
doc. 2806).
•
Assessing the effectiveness of an advisory and scrutiny committee will always be
difficult, especially in the case of one concerned with long-term activities such as the
management of HAW.
•
CoRWM will be looking at the assessment processes used by similar advisory bodies
in other countries, in order to identify best practice.
•
The improved CoRWM web site and the use of modern survey techniques will extend
the opportunities for obtaining feedback on the Committee’s performance.
3. SCRUTINY AND ADVICE ON INTERIM STORAGE
The Interim Storage Tasks and CoRWM’s Approach
25. CoRWM’s report to Government on interim storage (CoRWM doc. 2500) was published
at the end of 2008-09. The tasks on interim storage set out in CoRWM’s 2009-10 work
programme (CoRWM doc. 2515.2) were:
Task 1: Scrutinise and advise on interim storage issues for HAW and materials that may
be declared to be wastes, including:
a) monitoring actions taken in response to the recommendations in CoRWM’s
March 2009 Interim Storage Report (CoRWM doc. 2500)
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 13 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
b) scrutinising the NDA’s development of its Topic Strategy for HAW, including its
work on management options for short-lived intermediate level wastes (ILW)
c) following NDA progress in the development of its Topic Strategies for spent fuels,
plutonium and uranium
d) keeping a watching brief on waste transport issues (with a view to undertaking a
major piece of work in 2010-11).
Task 2: Scrutinise the development of Scottish Government policy for the management
of higher activity wastes, including the associated Strategic Environmental Assessment
(SEA) and advise accordingly.
26. CoRWM’s scrutiny work for Task 1 was carried out largely through meetings with NDA
and regulators. These meetings dealt with progress on the various NDA Topic
Strategies3, and with actions being taken in response to the recommendations in
CoRWM’s report on interim storage (CoRWM doc. 2500).
27. For Task 2 CoRWM drew up a detailed plan of action that had six main strands, as
follows.
i) Scrutinising the development of the consultation proposals, including attending
meetings organised by the Scottish Government and offering informal comments
on early drafts of its consultation material.
ii) Meeting a range of stakeholders to learn their views on the Scottish
Government’s proposals. The purpose of these meetings was to inform
CoRWM’s view of the policy and what the implications of its implementation might
be.
iii) Holding meetings with British Energy, Dounreay Site Restoration Ltd, the
Highland Council, Magnox North, NDA, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE),
and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). Members also attended
a Scottish Government stakeholder workshop on 29 January 2010, to observe
the Government’s engagement process and hear the views of a range of
stakeholders including local government, NGOs, nuclear site operators and
others. Members also met with a number of NGOs and local site stakeholders at
Dounreay and Hunterston.
iv) At its February 2010 plenary meeting CoRWM discussed the key issues
emerging from bilateral meetings (CoRWM doc. 2779), and its own review of the
consultation documents. This informed the preparation of CoRWM’s response to
the consultation
v) CoRWM discussed and agreed a formal response to the Scottish Government at
its March 2010 plenary, which was then submitted (CoRWM doc. 2795).
3 Details are at www.nda.gov.uk/strategy/overview.cfm
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 14 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
vi) CoRWM proposes to scrutinise the process whereby the Scottish Government
finalises and adopts its policy and this will be the subject of a position paper to be
produced, probably towards the end of 2010.
Management of Higher Activity Wastes UK-Wide
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
28. CoRWM discussed NDA progress on its HAW Topic Strategy at meetings with NDA in
June 2009 and March 2010 (CoRWM docs. 2624, 2792) and at a meeting with HSE, the
Environment Agency (EA) and SEPA in March 2010 (CoRWM doc. 2811). The NDA’s
existing and planned Integrated Project Teams (IPTs) on various aspects of HAW
management were also discussed at these meetings.
29. For topic strategy purposes, NDA divides HAW into several categories:
•
UK-owned high level waste (HLW)
•
overseas-owned HLW
•
overseas-owned ILW
•
wet ILW (
e.g. sludges, ion exchange resins)
•
solid ILW (
e.g. metals, concrete)
•
graphite.
30. For each category there is a baseline strategy and, where appropriate, NDA is exploring
alternative strategies, with a view to changing the baseline strategy if it would be
optimum to do so. In exploring alternative strategies, account is taken of the need to
achieve passive safety as soon as is reasonably practicable and of opportunities to
improve HAW management in various ways (
e.g. by reducing the quantities of HAW
destined for geological disposal). There are two categories of alternative strategies:
those that mitigate risks and those that provide a step change in benefits, compared to
the baseline.
31. The IPTs are NDA-led projects that will underpin strategy development or provide better
management methods for particular wastes. They are partnerships between NDA and
one or more of its Site Licence Companies (SLCs). At present there are IPTs on reactor
decommissioning wastes, interim storage and thermal treatment.
32. CoRWM notes that the present NDA topic strategy development process does not deal
with some strategic issues in a very transparent way. In particular there are a number of
issues that NDA considers as “opportunities” that CoRWM regards as requiring strategic
direction. These issues include:
• consolidation of storage of HAW on fewer sites (so that not every NDA site has to
have a HAW store)
• consolidation of HAW treatment (by moving wastes from one site to another for
treatment or by using mobile treatment plant)
• treatment of some HAW to make it suitable for near-surface disposal (
e.g.
decontamination, segregation
).
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 15 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
33. CoRWM has been monitoring progress in the Letter of Compliance (LoC) process
carried out by NDA’s Radioactive Waste Management Directorate (RWMD) (CoRWM
doc. 2792). LoC assessments are an integral part of the management of HAW on
nuclear-licensed sites and support site operators’ safety cases for HAW conditioning,
packaging, storage and geological disposal (Radioactive Waste Management Cases).
LoC assessments are also requested by waste owners and operators as part of their
exploration of alternative conditioning methods.
34. In its March 2009 report on interim storage (CoRWM doc. 2500), CoRWM raised the
question of whether RWMD needed more resources in order to speed up new LoC
assessments and reviews of existing LoCs. As far as the Committee is aware, NDA has
not yet addressed this question.
Regulatory Developments
35. In addition to its bilateral meetings with regulators, CoRWM attended an EA workshop on
approaches to assuring the disposability of HAW packages (CoRWM doc. 2637). The
workshop was part of a project on the monitoring and inspection regimes and techniques
that could be used to determine whether packages of ILW and HLW remain disposable
during interim storage, on arrival at a GDF and during any period that a GDF remains
open before backfilling and sealing.
36. A notable regulatory development during the year was the publication of revised and new
modules of the joint regulatory guidance on the management of HAW on nuclear
licensed sites (HSE
et al., 2010). The regulators informed us (CoRWM doc. 2811) that
some organisations are already complying with the guidance but others seem reluctant
to do so.
Strategic Co-ordination
37. In its 2009 report on interim storage (CoRWM doc. 2500), CoRWM recommended that
there should be greater UK-wide strategic co-ordination of the conditioning, packaging
and storage of HAW. In its response to the report (DECC
et al., 2009), Government
accepted this recommendation and stated that it was exploring the best means of
implementing it and would invite CoRWM to provide input to and scrutinise proposals as
they developed.
38. As yet, CoRWM has not been invited to provide any input to proposals. The Committee
notes that there appears to be greater co-ordination at the technical level than when its
report was published (
e.g. via the IPTs). It has also been told that the Radioactive Waste
Policy Group (RWPG), which is made up of Government and regulators, has new
members and new terms of reference, which may enable it to encourage strategic co-
ordination (CoRWM doc. 2811). For NDA, the Strategy Development and Delivery Group
(SDDG) has existed for about 18 months and now involves the Ministry of Defence
(MoD), as well as Government and regulators. It is not clear to CoRWM whether the
SDDG can play a role in UK-wide strategic coordination.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 16 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
Management of Spent Fuels, Plutonium and Uranium
Spent Fuels
39. CoRWM discussed NDA progress in developing topic strategies for spent fuels at
meetings with NDA and regulators in June 2009 and March 2010 (CoRWM docs. 2624,
2793, 2811). The current situation for Magnox fuel is that work is in hand to develop an
alternative to reprocessing, should one be required, but reprocessing is very much the
preferred route.
40. NDA is likely to decide over the next year or two how much AGR fuel to reprocess
because this is linked to key investment decisions at Sellafield. Work on the
management of AGR fuel that is not to be reprocessed is progressing but as yet there is
no safety case for longer-term storage of the fuel at Sellafield (in existing ponds or in a
new dry storage facility) and no detailed assessment of the disposability of AGR fuel.
41. For the “exotic” fuels4, two types of decision are needed: how to treat them (either to
condition them for disposal or to recover useful materials) and where to treat them (at the
sites where they are now kept or at Sellafield). The issues are complex and involve
safety and financial considerations and the views of stakeholders at various NDA sites
and near potential transport routes.
42. CoRWM has also been monitoring progress by British Energy on the management of
spent fuel at Sizewell B. British Energy has carried out a number of local consultations
and will submit a Planning Application and Environmental Statement for a dry storage
facility for Sizewell B fuel in 2010 (British Energy, 2009). There will then be a public
consultation on British Energy’s proposals.
Plutonium
43. In 2009-10 CoRWM attended a DECC workshop on the long-term management of the
UK’s separated civil plutonium (Environment Council, 2009) and sent informal comments
to DECC on two pre-consultation discussion papers on long-term plutonium
management (CoRWM docs. 2690, 2718). It discussed long-term plutonium
management at its November 2009 plenary meeting (CoRWM docs. 2723, 2729). This
discussion was intended to be a pre-cursor to considering whether, and if so how, to
respond to a DECC consultation on the long-term management of plutonium. This DECC
consultation was delayed; CoRWM understands that it will begin later in 2010.
44. NDA cannot progress with its topic strategy for plutonium until DECC has held its
consultation and decided on a UK strategy. Meanwhile, NDA is carrying out R&D on
plutonium immobilisation. There is also work on disposability of MOX fuel (as input to
consideration of plutonium recycling) (CoRWM doc. 2793).
Uranium
45. NDA work on its topic strategy for uranic materials is progressing (CoRWM doc. 2793).
Work is in progress on options for the management of the uranium hexafluoride at
4 NDA uses the term “exotic fuels” for non-standard fuels, mainly from research reactors that were
closed many years ago.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 17 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
Capenhurst. Options being considered include continued storage as hexafluoride in new
containers, deconversion to oxide at Capenhurst and deconversion to oxide elsewhere.
NDA’s RWMD is considering the disposability of uranic materials.
Strategic Co-ordination
46. CoRWM recommended in its 2009 report on interim storage (CoRWM doc. 2500) that
there be greater UK-wide strategic co-ordination of the management of spent fuels,
plutonium and uranium. By this it meant greater strategic co-ordination between the
owners of these materials (NDA, MoD, British Energy and Urenco UK Ltd), with the
involvement of Government and regulators. Government accepted this recommendation
(DECC
et al., 2009) but has not put forward any proposals. Nevertheless, it appears that
co-ordination between NDA and MoD is improving. In addition, the remit of RWPG has
been expanded to cover spent fuels, plutonium and uranium (CoRWM doc. 2811).
Transport
47. CoRWM met with Department for Transport (DfT) in January 2010 (CoRWM doc. 2764)
and briefly discussed transport with NDA in March 2010 (CoRWM doc, 2792). It was
found that there are extensive interactions between waste producers and DfT on HAW
packaging issues. In view of this, and the prescriptive nature of the transport regulations,
it was concluded that there would be no value in CoRWM carrying out any major work on
packaging for transport.
48. CoRWM also concluded from these meetings that there is a lack of strategic planning for
transport of existing, committed and new build wastes. In particular, it is not clear to
CoRWM who will co-ordinate the identification of the current infrastructure that needs to
be maintained or the new infrastructure that will be needed for transport of HAW and
spent fuels for treatment, storage and disposal (CoRWM doc. 2764). The Committee
notes that NDA’s Topic Strategy for transport and logistics deals only with current
arrangements.
Provision of Information to the Public
Information on HAW Management
49. CoRWM recommended in its 2009 report on interim storage (CoRWM doc. 2500) that
appropriate information be made publicly available on the management of higher activity
wastes, spent fuels, plutonium and uranium. It considered that there was a need to
summarise, for a variety of readerships, the progress to date, the management options
under consideration for the future, and the issues involved in choosing between
alternative options.
50. In its response to this recommendation (DECC
et al., 2009), Government mentioned
various pieces of work that NDA had in hand. CoRWM discussed these with NDA in
March 2010 (CoRWM doc. 2792). While what NDA is doing is valuable, it does not really
address the key issue in CoRWM’s recommendation. In particular the NDA’s Radioactive
Waste Management Information Strategy is about information management by waste
producers and owners, not provision of information to the public. There is still a need for
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 18 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
information on plans for the management of the various types of HAW, to complement
the information in the UK Radioactive Waste Inventory (Defra & NDA, 2008) about waste
quantities and characteristics.
Security Information
51. CoRWM discussed its 2009 recommendation about making security information publicly
available (CoRWM doc. 2500) with the Office of Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS) (CoRWM
doc. 2746). CoRWM’s understanding is that planned enhancements to the OCNS
website have been delayed pending the formation of the Office for Nuclear Regulation, of
which OCNS will be a part.
52. After the meeting with OCNS, CoRWM took further action on the specific issue of
information about designing HAW stores and spent fuel stores to resist 9/11 style
terrorist attacks. It wrote to OCNS and to the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII)
summarising its current understanding of the assessment and mitigation of aircraft
impact risks and asking some questions. It then produced a note based on that summary
and the NII and OCNS response (CoRWM doc. 2740). The key point is that regulators
will require new stores to be designed so as to mitigate the consequences of 9/11 style
attacks.
Development of Scottish Government HAW Management Policy
53. The proposed Scottish Government Policy is to
“support long-term near surface, near
site storage and disposal facilities so that the waste is monitorable and retrievable and
the need for transporting it over long distances is minimal”
(Scottish Government, 2010).
54. CoRWM presented a detailed response (CoRWM doc. 2795) to each of the questions
posed in the consultation. It also made the general comment that it felt that, while it was
clear that a great deal of effort and work had gone into producing the consultation
documents and the evidence that underpinned the development of the policy, there were
areas where they could have been significantly improved.
55. CoRWM presented a list of principal comments on the policy proposals (CoRWM doc.
2795) and these are reproduced below.
i) CoRWM considers that the policy would benefit from having more information on
the physical and chemical nature of the waste being produced in Scotland. The
Policy Statement needs to bring out that, within the definition of HAW that is
included, there is a sizeable portion of waste (the Environmental Report suggests
approximately 25% by volume) that will not be suitable for near-surface disposal.
The Policy Statement should be clear about the process for arriving at an end-
state for this waste.
ii) The policy is general and enabling, and places responsibility for developing an
implementation strategy with owners and producers. The policy does not ensure
optimisation and co-ordination. CoRWM believes the Scottish Government needs
to give more explicit guidance about what the implementation strategy is aiming
to achieve. For example, is there a preference, where possible, for disposal?
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 19 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
What are the full ranges of criteria for arriving at siting decisions? There also
needs to be more guidance about the process for developing the implementation
strategy and the likely timelines.
iii) The Policy Statement needs to make it clear that the NDA will lead the
development of an Implementation Strategy. Scottish Government will have to
direct and enable the NDA to take on this lead role.
iv) The Policy Statement needs to spell out how considerations of cost, affordability
and best value will be taken into account in developing an implementation
strategy.
v) The final policy statement needs to be stand-alone. Consequently, information
and detailed definitions that are currently within the Environmental Report need to
be brought into the Policy Statement. For example, it is stated in the
Environmental Report that the preference is for disposal but this is not reflected in
the Policy Statement.
56. CoRWM will scrutinise how these principal comments and the other important issues
raised in its response to the consultation (CoRWM doc. 2795) are addressed in the
development of the final policy.
4. SCRUTINY AND ADVICE ON GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL
The Geological Disposal Tasks and CoRWM’s Approach
57. The tasks on geological disposal set out in CoRWM’s 2009-10 work programme
(CoRWM doc. 2515.2) were:
Task 3: Complete CoRWM’s 2009 report to Government on geological disposal report.
Task 4: Scrutinise and advise on the voluntarism and partnership approach to geological
disposal facility siting, including:
a) scrutinise Government work to increase awareness of the invitation to communities
and monitor responses
b) scrutinise Government and NDA engagement with communities that have expressed
an interest.
Task 5: Scrutinise and advise on site assessment, including:
a) scrutinise the British Geological Survey’s screening out of unsuitable areas
b) scrutinise the NDA’s and others’ approaches to the assessment of skills and
infrastructure requirements for desk-based studies and surface-based investigations
(stages 4 and 5 of the siting process).
c) scrutinise NDA preparations for stage 4 of the siting process (desk-based studies).
Task 6: Scrutinise and advise on NDA implementation and safety case work, including:
a) scrutinise NDA’s continuing development of its Provisional Implementation Plan
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 20 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
b) scrutinise NDA’s continuing development of its Generic Disposal System Safety
Case.
Task 7: Monitor actions taken in response to the recommendations in CoRWM’s July 2009
Geological Disposal report.
Task 8: Maintain a watching brief on decision making, funding, risk management and
regulatory developments.
58. A draft of CoRWM’s report to Government on geological disposal was sent out to
stakeholders for comment and placed on the CoRWM website. The comments received
were logged and published with CoRWM’s responses to them (CoRWM doc. 2592). A
stakeholder event was held in Cumbria in May 2009 to discuss the draft report (CoRWM
doc. 2593). All the comments received were considered during finalisation of the report.
59. CoRWM had regular contacts with DECC in order to scrutinise Government work to
increase awareness of the invitation to communities to express an interest in entering
discussions about becoming involved in the process of siting a GDF (Task 4a). Only one
part of the UK has so far expressed an interest, namely West Cumbria. CoRWM
scrutinised Government and NDA engagement in Cumbria (Task 4b) mainly by attending
meetings of the West Cumbria Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) Partnership
(
www.westcumbriamrws.org.uk) as an observer. At CoRWM’s plenary meeting in
December 2009, the leader of Copeland Borough Council gave a presentation to
Committee about the work of the Partnership (CoRWM docs. 2743, 2744). CoRWM kept
in contact with the Nuclear Legacy Advisory Forum (NuLeAF) about the GDF siting
process and other aspects of the management of HAW. The Executive Director of
NuLeAF gave a presentation to CoRWM at a plenary meeting (CoRWM docs. 2734,
2743).
60. It is planned that NDA’s RWMD will become the delivery organisation for geological
disposal. CoRWM’s scrutiny of work for assessment of possible sites for a GDF (Task 5)
was carried out through meetings with RWMD, EA, the British Geological Survey (BGS),
and written and telephone communications with DECC and the West Cumbria MRWS
Partnership.
61. CoRWM’s scrutiny of NDA work on implementation of geological disposal (Task 6a) was
carried out through written comment on RWMD documents relating to implementation,
followed by a meeting with RWMD focused on the processes it is putting in place to
facilitate implementation. There was no specific scrutiny work on RWMD’s development
of its generic Disposal System Safety Case (DSSC), although CoRWM maintained
awareness of RWMD plans (
e.g. CoRWM doc. 2766). This scrutiny will take place in
2010-11, after RWMD publishes a first version of the DSSC.
2009 Report to Government on Geological Disposal
62. CoRWM’s report to Government on geological disposal was issued at the end of July
2009 (CoRWM doc. 2550). The report covers:
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 21 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
•
voluntarism and partnership in the GDF siting process
•
decision making, funding and managing risks in the implementation of geological
disposal
•
international experience
•
PSE
•
the regulatory framework for geological disposal
•
land use planning and SEA
•
developing concepts and designs for geological disposal.
63. The report contains five recommendations, which are given in full in Annex D. The
recommendations are about:
•
developing the principles to be used in deriving Community Benefits Packages
•
explaining how local stakeholders would have the opportunity to influence the
planning process for a GDF if the planning application is referred to the
Infrastructure Planning Commission5
•
discussing with communities that have expressed an interest the advantages and
disadvantages of single and two staged planning applications for underground
investigations and construction of a GDF
•
carrying out options assessments in which a wide range of geological disposal
concepts is considered and stakeholders are involved
•
the need for an integrated process for GDF design, site assessments and safety
case development.
64. Government responded to the report in November 2009 (DECC & DoENI, 2009). The
response stated that Government largely agreed with CoRWM’s recommendations and
set out the work in progress or planned to address them. Some specific pieces of work
are noted in the relevant sub-sections below; further details are in Section 6.
Voluntarism and Partnership
Increasing the Awareness of Communities to the Invitation to Participate
65. Government worked throughout 2009-10 to increase community awareness of the
invitation to express an interest in entering without commitment discussions about
hosting a GDF. DECC and NDA staff attended local authority conferences, offering the
opportunity for elected members and officials to obtain more information on the issues. In
the autumn of 2009 the DECC Minister of State wrote to the chief executives of local
authorities reminding them of the invitation. As of now (May 2010), no other community
has expressed an interest.
Government and NDA Engagement in West Cumbria
66. Various members of CoRWM attended meetings of the West Cumbria MRWS
Partnership as observers during 2009-10. Progress in the work of the Partnership is a
5 Current Government policy is that the Infrastructure Planning Commission will be abolished and
replaced by a different fast-track planning procedure for major projects.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 22 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
standing item at CoRWM’s plenary meetings and CoRWM provides information and
advice to the Partnership when it is appropriate to do so.
67. In March 2010 CoRWM met with the Partnership’s Steering Group to obtain their views
on Government and NDA support for the Partnership’s work (CoRWM doc. 2790). The
Steering Group told CoRWM that the Partnership had received all the support it needed
from DECC but that it thought the importance of the Partnership merited greater
recognition in Government, in particular it would be helpful if it was recognised at
Ministerial level. The Steering Group was also very pleased with how individuals from
NDA had worked with the Partnership. It had some concerns about whether the level of
NDA support in the future would be sufficient to meet all the Partnership’s needs and
whether NDA appreciated that the Partnership required time to do its work.
68. The topics covered in the first three of CoRWM’s recommendations in its 2009 report to
Government on geological disposal (CoRWM doc. 2550) are being addressed in the
work of the Partnership, with input from the Government and regulators. There is a
Partnership workstream on Community Benefits Packages (Recommendation 1), in
which DECC participates. Planning applications (Recommendations 2 and 3) are to be
covered in a workstream on safety, security, environment and planning (West Cumbria
MRWS Partnership, 2010a).
Site Assessment
Screening Out of Unsuitable Areas
69. The process of screening out areas that are obviously unsuitable for a GDF will be
carried out by the British Geological Survey (BGS), working under contract to DECC.
The draft BGS report will be made available, for discussion and peer review, to the
relevant communities and local authorities, NDA, the regulators and CoRWM.
70. The screening process in West Cumbria is due to begin in summer 2010. CoRWM has
provided advice and comments to the West Cumbria MRWS Partnership on the peer
review of the screening process and on CoRWM’s role with respect to the process and
the peer review (CoRWM doc. 2711).
71. The points made about CoRWM’s role were:
•
CoRWM could provide advice on and scrutiny of the site screening process. It could
scrutinise the BGS screening process and its appropriateness, the robustness of the
peer review arrangements put in place, and the quality of engagement with the
Partnership on the peer review process and its co-ordination.
•
CoRWM would not act in the role of peer reviewer of the BGS report. Whilst CoRWM
would receive the BGS report and develop a view on it, this would be focused on
scrutiny of the BGS screening process as a whole and within the context of MRWS
Stage 2.
72. With respect to co-ordination of the peer review for the BGS screening process, CoRWM
provided the following advice:
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 23 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
•
It is reasonable that Government (via DECC) works with the Partnership and BGS to
develop a coordinated peer review process.
•
Co-ordination would include definition of the planned timescale for review, avenues
for submission of reviews, style of reviews, deadlines for completion, rules regarding
use of data, and rules regarding attribution of sources and use of third parties.
•
All the relevant material should be available to all reviewers equally.
•
The process for considering the reviews should be open, transparent and fair.
•
Reviews must be independent and technically credible.
•
Cost and value for money are important but secondary considerations to the
provision of clearly independent professional reviews. However, parties with shared
interests may jointly wish to commission or utilise a single peer review.
73. Additional informal advice was provided on specific detailed aspects of peer review,
including terms of reference, independence and objectivity, and credibility and
competence.
74. The status of BGS processes and plans in relation to the screening out of unsuitable
areas was discussed in a meeting between CoRWM and BGS in February 2010
(CoRWM doc. 2801). A key point from this meeting was that the provisional timetable
gave BGS 10 weeks to undertake its study and submit a final report to the West Cumbria
MRWS Partnership. This included a fortnight for the peer review of the draft report and
for BGS amendments in the light of the review. During discussion at the February 2010
plenary (CoRWM doc. 2788), it was suggested that CoRWM contact both the
Partnership and DECC with advice to extend the time period allowed for peer review and
amendment of the BGS report.6
75. CoRWM emphasised to BGS the importance of stating clearly in its screening report that
areas not excluded are not automatically suitable. How this point is presented, both in
words and in figure or map form, would be critical to the engagement with the
communities in West Cumbria.
Identifying Sites for Desk-Based Studies
76. Desk-based studies are Stage 4 of the GDF siting process, after the screening out of
unsuitable areas (Stage 2) and the community’s Decision to Participate (Stage 3) (Defra
et al., 2008). In order to proceed from Stage 2 to the site assessment in Stage 4 there
has to be a process for moving from areas that have not been excluded to sites for desk-
based studies. RWMD carried out work on developing a proposed process in 2009 and
discussed it with CoRWM at a meeting in January 2010 (CoRWM doc. 2782).
77. RWMD had considered in detail the situation in which a Community Siting Partnership
asks NDA to develop and apply a process in consultation with stakeholders, in order to
define potential sites for desk-based characterisation. CoRWM advised on the need to
be very cautious, especially with respect to how different administrative bodies are to be
6 This was later overtaken by events and a longer period will now be allowed for peer review and
finalisation of the BGS screening report.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 24 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
involved. These need to be given the opportunity to participate and support the process.
Maintenance of partnership confidence requires a clear strategy of support, education
and information, especially if the process appears to be ‘stop-start’ or have gaps
between stages.
78. CoRWM noted that the relationship between application of objectives, exclusion criteria
and timing of geological assessment needs to be made clear before desk-based studies
begin. It suggested that a possible approach would be to assess potential host geologies
and locations for surface facilities in parallel, producing maps to illustrate these. The two
maps could then be overlain to see the differences between them. During this
assessment it would be important not to introduce arbitrary constraints on the depths of
underground facilities or on the distances between surface and underground facilities.
CoRWM also advised that the possible relationships between excluded areas, sites for
GDF surface facilities and sites for underground facilities need to be carefully explained
to stakeholders and the public at an early stage.
Site Characterisation
79. CoRWM attended an Environment Agency (EA) workshop on “Assessing the
Characterisation of Geological Environments for Repository Implementation” in
September 2009 (CoRWM doc. 2707; Quintessa, 2009). The workshop was designed to
contribute to developing EA work on understanding uncertainties in desk-based studies
and surface-based characterisation and the role of underground investigations, and to
provide comment on the MRWS timeline and its relationship with staged regulation. The
workshop was broken down into thematic sessions: desk-based studies (MRWS Stage
4), surface-based characterisation (Stage 5), underground characterisation (Stage 6)
and management issues.
80. Some general conclusions of the workshop were:
•
at present it is not possible to define in detail the activities within each MRWS stage
•
the permitting process for all characterisation work needs to be flexible
•
hold points imposed by regulators should not be ‘stop’ points.
•
MRWS Stage 5 should include time for re-processing data from the MRWS Stage 4
prior to detailed investigations
•
characterisation work under MRWS Stage 6 should be in two parts: underground
research and underground characterisation
•
an underground research facility would be required at each prospective GDF site
•
the management of the process has to recognise that the project will change from a
dominantly science-based project to an engineering project through its life cycle and
this should be central to implementation planning.
NDA Implementation Planning
81. In summer 2009 CoRWM commented on a draft of an RWMD document titled
“Geological Disposal: Planning for Implementation”. It then met with RWMD to discuss
the document and the RWMD implementation planning process in general (CoRWM doc.
2714).
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 25 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
82. RWMD indicated that the Provisional Implementation Plan (PIP), which is in effect the
Lifetime Plan for a GDF up to and beyond its closure, would not be developed further in
2009-10. RWMD was focusing on developing a 5-year plan that would cover in detail the
steps in the MRWS GDF siting process leading towards a Government decision on
surface-based investigation. The 5-year plan was also required for assessment in the
Government's Public Value Programme, which aimed to identify spending priorities in
preparation for the next Comprehensive Spending Review.
83. Discussion of the Planning for Implementation document included the transition from
generic to more site specific studies and the need for options assessments covering a
wide range of geological disposal concepts (the fourth recommendation in CoRWM doc.
2550). CoRWM understands that the final version of the document, which has been
retitled “Geological Disposal: Steps Towards Implementation”, will be published later in
2010. It will provide a first point of reference for the public on RWMD’s early planning for
the implementation of geological disposal.
84. The PIP might become the definitive Implementation Plan if and when a community took
a Decision to Participate in the siting process, but this change to the PIP would depend
on many factors, including regulatory requirements that are also evolving. RWMD also
explained that the PIP would, when developed, indicate what might happen on a range
of assumptions not all of which would prove valid. Once site-specific work began, the
generic work undertaken so far could be "banked" and subsequent work tailored to the
site.
85. R&D needs and gaps would be identified as part of the process of developing a site-
specific design and this would involve discussions with the local community. If an area
wanted to see how the process might develop after any Decision to Participate, a set of
"bounding" assumptions could be agreed with the Partnership and the PIP could then be
made specific to the area. The generic PIP could be used for any other communities
expressing an interest.
86. The delay in publishing the NDA Planning for Implementation document meant that
CoRWM was unable to carry out scrutiny on this topic in late 2009 and early 2010.
5. SCRUTINY AND ADVICE ON OTHER TOPICS
Research and Development
The R&D Tasks and CoRWM’s Approach
87. The tasks on research and development (R&D) set out in CoRWM’s 2009-10 work
programme (CoRWM doc. 2515.2) were:
Task 9: Complete CoRWM’s 2009 report to Government on R&D
Task 10: Scrutinise the implementation of the high-level RWMD R&D Strategy
Task 11: Scrutinise the development of the RWMD R&D work programme
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 26 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
Task 12: Monitor actions taken in response to the recommendations in CoRWM’s 2009
report to Government on R&D.
88. Completion of the 2009 CoRWM report to Government on R&D (CoRWM doc. 2543)
involved addressing and responding to comments received (CoRWM doc. 2630) when
the draft report was sent out for consultation to stakeholders and placed on the CoRWM
website. It also involved taking into account points made at a stakeholder event held in
September 2009 to discuss the draft report (CoRWM doc. 2677).
89. Tasks 10 and 11 were taken together because much of the implementation of the
RWMD R&D Strategy (NDA, 2009a) will take place
via the development, and the
carrying out, of the RWMD R&D Work Programme. CoRWM received drafts of RWMD
R&D work programme documents for comment and held a meeting with RWMD in
January 2010 to discuss the programme (CoRWM doc. 2776).
90. Government has yet to respond to CoRWM’s 2009 report on R&D (CoRWM doc. 2543),
so it has not been possible to carry out much work on Task 12. However, a meeting was
held with NDA to discuss all its R&D relevant to CoRWM’s remit at which the
recommendations in the report were discussed (CoRWM doc. 2766). In addition,
CoRWM has been following developments at the Research Councils.
91. In September 2009, CoRWM responded to a call for evidence for an inquiry on setting
priorities for publicly funded research by the House of Lords Science and Technology
Committee. In order to meet the House of Lords Committee’s deadline it was necessary
to respond before the 2009 R&D report was finalised. CoRWM then revised its evidence
(CoRWM doc. 2719) following publication of its R&D report.
2009 Report to Government on R&D
92. CoRWM’s report to Government on R&D was issued at the end of October 2009
(CoRWM doc. 2543). The report covers:
• the UK’s process for providing R&D in the management of HAW
• the skills requirements to support R&D in the MRWS programme, in particular
those R&D skills needed to enable implementation of geological disposal
• the infrastructure requirements, in particular those facilities supporting R&D on
highly radioactive materials and facilities for R&D that will need to be carried out
underground
• PSE on the above topics.
93. The report contains six recommendations, which are given in full in Annex D. These are
about:
•
the need for strategic co-ordination of UK R&D for the management of HAW
(within the NDA, between the NDA and the rest of the nuclear industry, amongst
the Research Councils and between the whole of the nuclear industry, its
regulators and the Research Councils)
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 27 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
•
ensuring that EA and SEPA obtain the resources they need to access and
commission additional independent research
•
assigning to a single organisation the responsibility for providing leadership and
strategic direction for the provision of R&D skills relevant to HAW management
•
improving and enhancing the capabilities of UK facilities for research with highly
radioactive materials and making them more accessible to researchers
•
establishing an underground research facility at any site in the UK where it is
proposed to construct a GDF.
94. In the letter explaining why the Government’s response to the R&D report had been
delayed, Lord Hunt, the DECC Minister of State, stated that:
“This report is wide ranging and raises a number of interesting and inter-connected
points that cut across the work of several Government departments, Devolved
Administrations and delivery agencies. Officials from CoRWM’s sponsor departments are
currently working together with these bodies to examine the report and
recommendations jointly to ensure that issues raised are considered, as far as possible,
in a joined up manner.”
NDA R&D
R&D on Management of HAW
95. A meeting with NDA on R&D in January 2010 (CoRWM doc. 2766) provided CoRWM
with an overview of the R&D being carried out by NDA and its SLCs that is relevant to
CoRWM’s interests. The meeting began with a brief discussion of the recommendations
in CoRWM’s 2009 report to Government on R&D (CoRWM doc. 2543), which NDA
broadly supported. NDA then described how its own R&D, particularly the Direct
Research Portfolio, is managed. NDA re-emphasised that it would only fund research
that it designates as needs-driven.
96. Most of the R&D that NDA pays for is funded through the SLCs (CoRWM doc. 2543).
NDA stated that it cannot direct the SLCs as to which R&D to fund but can only advise.
CoRWM asked about strategic oversight of all the R&D and who in NDA has an
overview. This led to a discussion of the role of the NDA Research Board on
Decommissioning and Clean Up (NDARB) and the Nuclear Waste Research Forum
(NWRF), which reports to the NDARB.
97. The NDARB is primarily concerned with NDA’s own research and co-ordinating this with
other organisations. The NWRF provides a forum for SLCs, other nuclear site licensees
and regulators to talk to each other. Neither the NDARB in its present form nor the
NWRF is an appropriate mechanism for carrying out the strategic co-ordination of R&D
that CoRWM considers is needed (CoRWM doc. 2543). CoRWM has been invited to
attend NWRF meetings as an observer and has accepted the invitation.
98. In March 2010 NDA published its business plan for 2010-13 (NDA, 2010). This indicates
that NDA’s own spend on R&D in 2010-11 will be £6 million, compared to £34 million in
2009-10. It is not yet clear to CoRWM how NDA R&D on HAW management will be
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 28 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
affected by the budget reduction. Nor is it clear to the Committee how SLC funding of
R&D will change in 2010-11.
R&D on Geological Disposal
99. CoRWM met RWMD in January 2010 (CoRWM doc. 2776) to discuss a draft of the
document that contains an overview of the geological disposal R&D programme,
diagrams describing the programme and prioritisation tables. The Committee recognised
that it is difficult for RWMD to set out a highly focussed R&D programme in advance of
the identification of possible sites for a GDF and hence the types of geological
formations and geological disposal concepts that need to be studied.
100.
There was also discussion of the need to identify skills gaps and ensure that the
programme leads to the development of UK R&D skills on the timescale on which they
will be needed. It was noted that there is likely to be strong competition for geological
R&D skills from other technical areas (
e.g. carbon capture, oil and gas exploration).
101.
CoRWM has been invited to attend meetings of RWMD’s Research Advisory Panel
as an observer. It has accepted this invitation and expects to provide input to
discussions, where appropriate, and update the Panel on CoRWM’s work, as well as
observing proceedings. At a meeting with the Chief Executive of NDA in March 2010
(CoRWM doc. 2797), CoRWM learnt that RWMD spend on R&D will increase in future
years, as implementation of geological disposal progresses.
102.
CoRWM notes that EA is scrutinising RWMD R&D in detail. This is part of EA’s
scrutiny of all RWMD work relating to geological disposal (EA, 2010).
Research Councils
103.
In March 2010 the Chair of CoRWM wrote to the Chief Executive of the Natural
Environment Research Council (NERC) expressing concern that, although radioactive
waste disposal is identified explicitly in NERC’s current strategic plan (“Next Generation
Science for Planet Earth”), it is not yet recognised in any of the Theme Action Plans that
will deliver the strategy. This may mean that research projects on radioactive waste
disposal will not be included in NERC’s developing thematic programmes until 2011-12,
after the next Comprehensive Spending Review, when budgets may be more limited.
104.
In his reply, the Chief Executive of NERC emphasised NERC’s current support for
relevant research and the flexibility of NERC’s strategy and programmes, which would
allow expansion if required. He also stated that, subject to approval by its Council, a
NERC activity was being developed on radioactivity in the environment. In addition, he
invited CoRWM to meet the relevant NERC staff to explore these issues further. CoRWM
intends to arrange a meeting in due course.
105.
CoRWM is also concerned about the uncertainty in the timing of the Engineering and
Physical Sciences Research Council’s (EPSRC) call for research proposals on
geological disposal. This concern was prompted by an EPSRC-convened workshop in
summer 2009; it is still unclear when the programme will be initiated.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 29 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
106.
One of the questions asked by the House of Lords Science and Technology
Committee in its inquiry about setting priorities for publicly funded research (House of
Lords, 2010b) was about the balance of funding between “targeted” and “responsive-
mode” research. In its evidence (CoRWM doc. 2719), CoRWM expressed the view that
much more curiosity-driven research is needed for HAW management, in addition to the
targeted research sponsored at present by the nuclear industry and the Research
Councils. This point was also made in the 2009 report on R&D (CoRWM doc. 2543),
which noted that, in the nuclear area, EPSRC makes much more use of
“managed calls”
for targeted research than it does of “responsive-mode” funding for curiosity-driven
research.
107.
In its report on its inquiry about setting priorities for publicly funded research (House
of Lords, 2010b), the Science and Technology Committee stated:
“It goes without saying that an appropriate balance needs to be maintained between the
different types of research. We were told that, in the light of its inherent unpredictability,
responsive-mode research is likely to fare less well in challenging economic
circumstances than targeted research. With this in mind, we urge Research Councils,
in determining the appropriate balance, to give due consideration to the role and
importance of responsive-mode research in meeting the broader objectives of
research.”
New Build Wastes
The New Build Wastes Task and CoRWM’s Approach
108.
The task on wastes from new nuclear power stations set out in CoRWM’s 2009-10
work programme (CoRWM doc. 2515.2) was:
Task 13: Advise on interim storage and geological disposal issues for ILW and spent
fuels from new build nuclear power stations.
109.
CoRWM began work on this task in June 2009 when it commented informally on a
first draft of the summary of evidence on radioactive waste management that DECC had
prepared to accompany the draft National Policy Statement (NPS) for new nuclear power
stations. These informal comments were from the points of view of factual accuracy and
clarity of expression.
110.
In early autumn 2009 CoRWM made informal comments on a further draft of the
evidence summary and on a draft chapter for the NPS consultation document and a draft
section for the nuclear NPS. Again these comments were only about factual accuracy
and clarity of expression.
111.
The DECC public consultation on the energy infrastructure NPSs began in November
2009. CoRWM discussed the preparation of its response to the consultation at its
December 2009 plenary meeting (CoRWM doc. 2743). It agreed that it would prepare a
response to those parts of the nuclear NPS consultation that dealt with ILW and spent
fuel and issue a separate statement of CoRWM’s current position on new build wastes. It
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 30 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
also agreed the structure of its response and its approach to the consultation questions
(CoRWM doc. 2733). The response (CoRWM doc. 2748) and position statement
(CoRWM doc. 2749) were prepared over the period from late December 2009 to early
March 2010. Drafts were discussed at the January 2010 and February 2010 plenary
meetings (CoRWM docs. 2770, 2788).
112.
To obtain information for use in its response to the NPS consultation, CoRWM held
meetings with regulators and with prospective reactor vendors and operators (CoRWM
docs. 2746, 2747, 2764, 2765, 2767). It also invited stakeholders,
via its e-bulletin and
website, to send it any information about new build wastes that they wished to draw to
the Committee’s attention (CoRWM doc. 2755). All the information received at meetings
and by other means was taken into account in preparing the NPS consultation response.
CoRWM’s Position on New Build Wastes
113.
The March 2010 statement of CoRWM’s position on new build wastes (CoRWM doc.
2749) starts from the statements made in the Committee’s 2006 Recommendations to
Government (CoRWM doc. 700). It reiterates that the Committee’s position on the
desirability or otherwise of building new nuclear power stations remains neutral,
i.e. CoRWM is neither for or against new build.
114.
The statement then deals with consideration of wastes in the new build assessment
process and with the testing and validation of proposals for management of new build
wastes. It ends by stating that CoRWM’s future work on new build wastes will consist of
carrying out scrutiny and providing advice on:
•
consideration of waste issues in the public assessment process for new build
power stations
•
formulation of plans to ensure that, if new build wastes are created, they are
safely and securely managed
•
prevention and, where that is not possible, minimisation of adverse impacts
on the management of existing and committed wastes
•
maintenance of public confidence in plans for the long-term management of
new build wastes, in addition to existing and committed wastes.
CoRWM’s Response to the NPS Consultation
115.
CoRWM responded to seven questions in the NPS consultation document. The
principal question for the Committee was Question 19, which was:
Do you agree with the Government’s preliminary conclusion that effective arrangements
exist or will exist to manage and dispose of waste that will be produced by new nuclear
power stations in the UK?
116.
In its response (CoRWM doc. 2748) CoRWM agreed that some arrangements exist
that would be effective for the management of HAW from new nuclear power stations. It
went on to state that whether there will be effective arrangements for all the steps in the
management, including the disposal, of new build HAW is a matter of judgement, and it
is for the Government to make this judgement, based on the information available to it.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 31 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
117.
The response then said that CoRWM considers that the Government should take into
account when making this judgement that, while the current UK process for siting a GDF
for HAW is sound, it is at an early stage. Its success depends on finding a combination
(or combinations if more than one GDF is needed) of a willing host community and a site
that is technically suitable to hold enough HAW. At present, it is uncertain whether the
appropriate combination (or combinations) of community and site can be found in this
country. This uncertainty applies to existing and committed HAW, as well as to new build
HAW, and is likely to persist for many years.
118.
In addition, the response stated that CoRWM considers that the Government should
recognise the need for optimisation of the management, including the disposal, of new
build HAW. To meet legal and regulatory requirements, it is necessary for prospective
operators of new nuclear power stations, with the assistance of NDA, to identify, assess
and compare options for the management of new build spent fuel, including the design
and location of stores, the storage period and a range of possible geological disposal
concepts.
119.
The response also made the point that CoRWM considers that it is essential for the
public to have confidence in the management of new build HAW. The need for public
confidence is being taken into account in the implementation of geological disposal. To
date, insufficient attention has been paid to it in planning for storage of new build spent
fuel. This needs to be rectified in future, particularly by prospective operators of new
nuclear power stations.
120.
In answer to the general consultation question, CoRWM’s response made a number
of points about the possible impact of the NPS on the long-term management of existing
and committed HAW. CoRWM emphasised to Government the importance of the
voluntarist approach to the siting of a GDF (or GDFs) and reiterated its view (CoRWM
doc. 2550) that it would be helpful if Government were to restate its commitment to this
approach and indicate that it would consult stakeholders before adopting any other
approach. CoRWM also stated that there is a need for greater integration in planning for
the long-term management of existing, committed and new build wastes.
Scrutiny of the PSE of Various Organisations
The PSE Scrutiny Tasks and CoRWM’s Approach
121.
In 2009-10 CoRWM had two tasks relating to carrying out scrutiny and providing
advice on public and stakeholder engagement (CoRWM doc.2515.2):
Task 15: Liaise with other organisations on ways to provide information to the public
about the MRWS programme and radioactive waste management in general.
Task 16: Scrutinise the PSE activities of Government, NDA and the regulators related to
the MRWS programme.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 32 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
122.
For Task 15 CoRWM took opportunities as they arose, rather than convening specific
meetings or requesting documents. For Task 16 CoRWM wrote to Government, NDA,
regulators and operators of nuclear sites asking a series of questions about their PSE.
Members of CoRWM also observed the PSE practices of various organisations when
attending meetings of their stakeholders. In addition, CoRWM monitored the PSE
activities of organisations through their literature and websites.
Liaison on Providing Information to the Public
123.
CoRWM discussed the provision of information to the public about interim storage
related topics with NDA in March 2010 (CoRWM doc. 2792). As noted above in the
context of interim storage (para. 49), the work carried out so far by NDA on the
management of information about radioactive wastes does not address CoRWM’s main
concerns (CoRWM doc. 2500).
124.
When rebuilding CoRWM’s website (para. 16), the decision was taken to focus the
site on the Committee’s work, leaving other websites to provide general information
about the management of higher activity wastes. Three websites were examined to find
out whether, between them, they contained the necessary information. These were the
main DECC website, the DECC MRWS website and the NDA website7. It was noted that
there were some gaps and overlaps. These were drawn to the attention of DECC and
NDA. There will be further work on this topic during CoRWM’s scrutiny of the
rationalisation of these three websites that is to take place in 2010-11.
125.
CoRWM learnt in June 2009 that EA, HSE and DfT intended to set up joint web
pages on regulating geological disposal (CoRWM doc. 2550). The web pages went “live”
in December 20098. EA has also revised and expanded its own web pages on geological
disposal9.
Questionnaire on PSE
126.
In January 2010 CoRWM put a number of questions (CoRWM doc. 2750) to
Governments, NDA, regulators and site operators about their PSE activities. These
included how they identified their stakeholders, drew up an engagement strategy and
reviewed its effectiveness, and how they made relevant information more accessible.
CoRWM asked for comments and observations. A number of responses have been
received. These will be evaluated in 2010-11 and the results included in a position paper
on PSE to be published in December 2010, with the outcomes of other CoRWM PSE
scrutiny activities in 2009 and 2010.
Scrutiny of PSE Related to Geological Disposal
127.
The results of CoRWM’s initial scrutiny of Government and NDA PSE related to
geological disposal are given in the 2009 report to Government (CoRWM doc. 2550).
Since then NDA’ RWMD has published its Public and Stakeholder Engagement and
7
www.decc.gov.uk, http://mrws.decc.gov.uk, www.nda.gov.uk.
8 www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/sectors/111766.aspx
9 For example,
www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/sectors/37483.aspx
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 33 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
Communications Strategy for geological disposal (NDA, 2009b). It is currently developing
stakeholder engagement plans.
128.
As previously mentioned (para. 66), CoRWM is an observer at meetings of the West
Cumbria MRWS Partnership10. The Partnership is carrying out a wide range of public
engagement activities and has independent facilitation for its meetings. The UK
Government and NDA are providing support when requested to do so. CoRWM is
impressed by the extensive nature and inclusivity of the PSE activities in West Cumbria.
Scrutiny of PSE on Various Aspects of HAW Management
129.
CoRWM observes the work of the Government’s Nuclear Engagement Group, where
the UK Government, the Devolved Administrations, NDA and the regulators share their
engagement plans on legacy and new nuclear issues and discuss lessons learned. One
of its outputs is the "nuclear consultations" page and map on the DECC website11. The
Group is independently facilitated.
130.
CoRWM attends meetings of the NDA National Stakeholder Group12 (
e.g. CoRWM
doc. 2803). This also has an independent facilitator. Its effectiveness is reviewed
periodically and another review is due in 2010.
131.
Meetings at which CoRWM observed the PSE practices of organisations in 2009-10
included:
•
DECC workshop on the long-term management of plutonium (Environment
Council, 2009)
•
Scottish Government workshops for the development of its policy on the long-
term management of HAW13
•
EA workshop on site characterisation (Quintessa, 2009)
132.
CoRWM noted British Energy PSE on the proposed dry store for spent fuel at
Sizewell B (British Energy, 2009) and some of the DECC and the regulators’ PSE related
to waste management aspects of new nuclear power stations14. In addition, CoRWM
took the opportunity during its visits to Hinkley Point and Hunterston to ask site operators
and stakeholders about the PSE undertaken and their views on its effectiveness
(CoRWM docs. 2802, 2809).
10
www.westcumbriamrws.org.uk
11
www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/energy_mix/nuclear/consultations/consult
ations.aspx
12
www.nda.gov.uk/stakeholders
13
www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/waste-and-pollution/16293/higheractivitywastepolicy
14
https://www.energynpsconsultation.decc.gov.uk/home/events,
www.hse.gov.uk/newreactors/stakeholderengagement.htm
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 34 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
6. IMPACTS OF CoRWM’s SCRUTINY AND ADVICE
133.
This section of the report sets out the impacts that CoRWM considers its scrutiny and
advice has had in 2009-10 on the work of Government, NDA and others. It includes
actions taken in response to the recommendations in CoRWM’s three 2009 reports to
Government (CoRWM docs. 2500, 2543, 2550). It also covers the effects of other
CoRWM work on the development and implementation of Government policy on the
management of HAW and on promoting understanding of radioactive waste
management issues.
Actions taken in Response to CoRWM Recommendations
Recommendations in CoRWM’s 2009 Report on Interim Storage
134.
The 2009 CoRWM report on interim storage (CoRWM doc. 2500) made four
recommendations to Government. The text of these is given in full in Annex D.
135.
The first recommendation was about strategic co-ordination of conditioning,
packaging and storage of HAW and of management of spent fuels, plutonium and uranic
materials. Government accepted this recommendation (DECC
et al., 2009) and indicated
that it would explore the best means of implementing it and invite CoRWM to comment
on its proposals. To date, Government has not put any specific proposals to CoRWM.
However, CoRWM has observed that some actions have been taken that may lead to
better strategic co-ordination in some areas (paras. 38, 46).
136.
The second recommendation was about making appropriate information available to
the public about the management of HAW, spent fuels, plutonium and uranic materials.
The Government response (DECC
et al., 2009) noted the range of information that was
already available and that was planned to be made available, and the NDA work in hand
on a radioactive waste information management system. CoRWM does not consider that
any of the actions taken to date meet the need it identified in its recommendation. It has
made its views known to NDA (CoRWM doc. 2792) and to regulators (CoRWM doc.
2811).
137.
The third recommendation in the 2009 report on interim storage was about making
information available to the public about how the security of storage and transport of
radioactive wastes and nuclear materials is assured. In its response (DECC
et al., 2009)
Government recognised the importance of being open and transparent and stated that
work was underway to make existing information more accessible and to raise its profile.
This work was subsequently delayed as a result of planned changes to regulatory
organisations (para. 51). In the meantime, CoRWM itself has made information available
to the public about designing stores to mitigate the consequences of terrorist attacks
(para. 52; CoRWM doc. 2740).
138.
The fourth recommendation was about co-ordination of PSE between NDA and other
UK industry organisations at national, regional and local levels. Government accepted
the need for such co-ordination and stated that it would be looking to improve co-
ordination wherever possible (DECC
et al., 2009). CoRWM has monitored co-ordination
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 35 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
during the year and will report its findings in its position paper on PSE late in 2010 (para.
126).
Recommendations in CoRWM’s 2009 Report on Geological Disposal
139.
There were five recommendations in CoRWM’s 2009 report to Government on
geological disposal (CoRWM doc. 2550). The text of these is given in full in Annex D.
140.
The first recommendation was about Community Benefits Packages. In its response
(DECC & DoENI, 2009) Government reaffirmed the commitment to providing benefits
packages given in the 2008 MRWS White Paper (Defra
et al., 2008). It stated that it
believed that any benefits package must be developed jointly between local communities
and Government as discussions about hosting a GDF progressed, and that final
agreement on a package would take time, possibly some years (DECC & DoENI, 2009).
DECC, as an observer at the meetings of the West Cumbria MRWS Partnership, is
helping to take forward the Partnership’s workstream on community benefits. Any other
area that expressed an interest in entering discussions with Government about hosting a
GDF could draw on this work.
141.
The second and third recommendations were about the procedure for making a
planning application for a GDF. The second recommendation was about the involvement
of local stakeholders in the event that a planning application is referred to the
Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). The third recommendation was about the
stages and hold points in planning applications. Government responded positively to
both recommendations (DECC & DoENI, 2009).
142.
Government stated that public consultation and participation would be at the heart of
the planning process, whether or not a planning application was referred to the IPC. It
further stated that the advantages and disadvantages of single- and two-stage planning
applications would form part of the discussions that Government and NDA would have
with potential host communities and that there would be appropriate hold points and
associated opportunities for stakeholder engagement (DECC & DoENI, 2009). CoRWM
welcomes these commitments which, if translated into actions, would largely meet its
recommendations.
143.
The fourth recommendation was that Government should ensure that NDA carries
out options assessments in which a wide range of geological disposal concepts is
considered and that stakeholders are involved in these assessments. The Government
response (DECC & DoENI, 2009), a draft RWMD document on optimisation of a GDF
(NDA, 2009c) and CoRWM discussions with RWMD (CoRWM docs. 2714, 2776) have
shown that RWMD is considering a range of geological disposal concepts at a generic
level. However, RWMD does not intend to carry out much of the necessary optimisation
work until more is known about potential GDF sites. CoRWM will be following RWMD
work closely. It will take a particular interest in whether RWMD is considering a
sufficiently wide range of geological disposal concepts for each potential site and
whether enough stakeholders are being involved in comparisons of these concepts.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 36 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
144.
The last recommendation in the 2009 report on geological disposal was about the
need for NDA to have an integrated process for GDF design, site assessments and
safety case development. Government agreed (DECC & DoENI, 2009) that it was
essential for NDA to have such an integrated process. CoRWM will be examining
documents published by RWMD in 2010, for example the Steps Towards Implementation
document and the documents describing the DSSC, to determine the extent to which a
suitable process is in place.
Recommendations in CoRWM’s 2009 Report on R&D
145.
The six recommendations in CoRWM’s 2009 report to Government on R&D (CoRWM
doc. 2543) are given in full in Annex D. As explained by the DECC Minister of State
(para. 94), the scale and breadth of the issues covered in the report have led to a
significant delay in producing the Government response (which was due at the end of
January 2010). The report was well received by the House of Lords Science and
Technology Committee (House of Lords, 2010a). In oral evidence Lord Jenkin of Roding
commented,
“...the R&D report contains fairly clear and specific and, it seemed to me,
quite wise recommendations”. In his oral evidence, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (the DECC
Minister of State), explaining the delay in Government responding to the R&D report,
said
“...an important report like that deserves a lot of work in terms of responding...”.
CoRWM has taken every opportunity to raise its R&D recommendations in meetings with
sponsors, NDA and stakeholders and looks forward to action in response to them in due
course.
Other Impacts of CoRWM’s Scrutiny and Advice
Influence on Development of Government Policy
146.
The main policy area in which CoRWM had influence in 2009-10 was that of
development of Scottish Government policy on the management of HAW (paras. 53-56).
Early scrutiny of the Scottish Government development process led to the advice that the
process be slowed down to allow full consideration of the outcomes of the SEA when
drafting the policy documents. The Scottish Government accepted this advice and
delayed the start of its consultation by several months, so that it began in early 2010, not
in autumn 2009 as originally planned. The Scottish Government also took into account a
number of CoRWM’s comments in preparing its draft policy documents. CoRWM
anticipates that the Scottish Government will consider the Committee’s response to the
consultation (CoRWM doc. 2795) when finalising its HAW policy.
147.
Other examples of CoRWM work in 2009-10 that could influence future Government
policy are:
•
the Committee’s response to the DECC consultation on the energy
infrastructure NPS (paras. 115-120; CoRWM doc. 2748)
•
the Committee’s responses to the pre-consultation discussion papers on the
long-term management of plutonium (paras. 43-44; CoRWM docs. 2690,
2718).
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 37 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
Influence on the Implementation of Government Policy
148.
Examples of where CoRWM’s work in 2009-10 influenced the implementation of
Government policy related to the management of HAW are as follows.
•
CoRWM encouraged Government to increase the awareness of the invitation to
communities to express an interest in entering discussions about hosting a GDF
(CoRWM doc. 2550). Government carried out a number of actions to do this
(para. 65).
•
EA, HSE and DfT agreed in principle to set up a Joint Regulatory Office for
geological disposal, as advised by CoRWM (CoRWM doc. 2550). As a first step,
these regulators have set up joint web pages (para. 125).
•
NDA took into account CoRWM advice (CoRWM doc. 2550) in finalising its PSE
and communications strategy for geological disposal (NDA, 2009b) and its
strategy for sustainability appraisal and environmental assessment (NDA,
2009d).
•
CoRWM advised the West Cumbria MRWS Partnership on the peer review of the
BGS Geological Sub-Surface Screening Report (paras. 69-75; CoRWM doc.
2711). The Partnership’s draft specification for the peer review reflected this
advice (West Cumbria MRWS Partnership, 2010b).
•
CoRWM advice is being used by NDA in developing its proposed process for
identifying sites for desk-based assessment (paras.76-78; CoRWM doc. 2782).
Promoting Understanding of Issues
149.
CoRWM considers that several of its activities in 2009-10 have contributed to
stakeholder and public understanding of HAW management issues. These activities
include:
•
the stakeholder event to discuss the draft 2009 report to Government on
geological disposal (CoRWM doc. 2593) and the publication of that report
(CoRWM doc. 2550)
•
the stakeholder event to discuss the draft 2009 report to Government on R&D
(CoRWM doc. 2677) and the publication of that report (CoRWM doc. 2543)
•
publication of CoRWM’s evidence (CoRWM docs. 2756, 2789) to the House of
Lords Science and Technology Committee inquiry on radioactive waste
management (House of Lords, 2010a)
•
holding public meetings at Hunterston (CoRWM doc. 2802) and Hinkley Point
(CoRWM doc. 2809).
7. HOUSE OF LORDS INQUIRY
150.
In January 2010 the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee launched
an inquiry into CoRWM. The purpose of the inquiry was to assess how CoRWM had
performed since its reconstitution in 2007, to consider whether CoRWM’s remit had
proved to be appropriate and to gauge CoRWM’s impact on the implementation of the
MRWS programme (House of Lords, 2010a).
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 38 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
151.
CoRWM submitted written evidence to the inquiry (CoRWM docs. 2756, 2789) and
gave oral evidence. The inquiry also received written and oral evidence from DECC and
NDA, and written evidence from EA, the Geological Society of London, Greenpeace and
the Nuclear Industry Association (House of Lords, 2010a).
152.
The report of the inquiry was published in March 2010 (House of Lords, 2010a). It
states that:
“The existence of an independent and effective scrutiny body plays an important part in
maintaining public trust and confidence in the Government’s strategy for radioactive
waste disposal. CoRWM must be able to show, therefore, that it is proactively
scrutinising Government policy and the NDA’s progress in implementing the MRWS
programme. In this report, we make a series of recommendations designed to strengthen
CoRWM, enabling it to better hold the Government to account on their progress in
developing a geological disposal facility. Without on-going external pressure, it is
possible that the MRWS programme may not be implemented as rapidly as is needed.”
153.
Government has stated that it will respond to the report. It would not be appropriate
for CoRWM to respond but it will publish its comments on the House of Lords’
recommendations (CoRWM doc. 2821).
8. STATUS OF ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF HAW
Treatment, Packaging, Storage and Disposal
Treatment and Packaging
154.
The latest available figures from NDA indicate that about 9% of the total volume of
ILW expected to arise from the current nuclear programme has been conditioned and
packaged for longer term storage and eventual disposal. For HLW the figure is 48%
(NDA, 2009e). If only existing wastes are considered, the figure is about 30% for ILW.
There is about 800 cubic metres of highly active liquor in tanks at Sellafield awaiting
vitrification (Defra & NDA, 2008).
155.
As noted in CoRWM’s report to Government on interim storage (CoRWM doc. 2500),
some existing ILW is in relatively inert and stable forms and is not a high priority for
immobilisation. Other ILW, particularly that in some legacy facilities, is in much less
stable forms. It is important that such legacy wastes are retrieved as soon as is
practicable. Ideally, these wastes would be conditioned as soon as they had been
retrieved, so as to achieve the greatest hazard reduction in the shortest time. However,
there are some cases where retrieving the wastes and placing them in a buffer store is
likely to be the best option, because it achieves substantial short-term hazard reduction
while allowing time to sort and characterise the wastes and to carry out R&D on
conditioning methods.
156.
CoRWM welcomes NDA statements about the priority being given to retrieving ILW
from legacy facilities, especially at Sellafield (NDA, 2010). However, the Committee has
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 39 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
not yet seen any speeding up of retrieval projects or of the rates of conditioning and
packaging of ILW in general. At Magnox sites more centralised project management is
leading to better use of effort and funds (CoRWM doc. 2809) but does not seem to be
speeding up ILW retrieval or conditioning overall. There are indications that some
retrieval projects at Sellafield are slowing down (CoRWM doc. 2811). This situation is
less than ideal.
Storage
157.
CoRWM concluded in its March 2009 report (CoRWM doc. 2500) that:
At all nuclear sites the current plans for storage of higher activity wastes are adequate to
meet the CoRWM 2006 recommendation, and the subsequent Government commitment,
that there should be arrangements for safe and secure storage for at least 100 years.
However, the present UK approach to storage lacks robustness: it is fragmented and too
few sites have contingency plans. A more strategic approach is required.
158.
As far as CoRWM is aware, this is still the situation. The setting up of the NDA’s IPT
on interim storage is a welcome development but it appears that it has yet to make any
practical impact. Furthermore, it is unclear to CoRWM how NDA intends to tackle
strategic issues such as the possible consolidation of HAW storage on fewer sites, and
the possible use of shared storage facilities for NDA and British Energy ILW at sites
where there are stations owned by both organisations.
Transport
159.
There is almost no transport of HAW in the UK at present. This situation could
change in the next few years if it is decided to move HAW for treatment, packaging or
storage. It will be essential to involve stakeholders and the public in such decisions,
including people who live near transport routes, as well as those who live near the
dispatching and receiving nuclear sites.
160.
Eventually there will be a need to move a large volume of HAW (including any spent
fuel, plutonium and uranium that has been declared to be waste) to a GDF (or GDFs). It
appears to CoRWM that insufficient attention has been paid to planning for such
transport. There is a need to co-ordinate the identification of the current infrastructure
that must be maintained for future use and to set out plans for establishing the new
infrastructure that will be required.
Disposal
Geological Disposal
161.
The rate of progress in implementing geological disposal was raised during the
House of Lords Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into radioactive waste
management (House of Lords, 2010a). The House of Lords Committee expressed
concern that neither the Government nor CoRWM was conveying any sense of urgency.
162.
CoRWM’s view is that, in general, the implementation of geological disposal is
proceeding at an appropriate pace. The process for establishing a GDF is founded on a
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 40 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
voluntary approach and its speed of progress must be determined by the willingness of
the potential volunteer community or communities to proceed. Any attempt to try to
impose time constraints on deliberations is likely to be counter-productive.
163.
It is also important to allow sufficient time for technical work, in particular site
characterisation, GDF design and R&D. As the programme progresses, it is possible that
scientific and technical developments will allow it to be speeded up in some respects.
However, CoRWM considers that there will be a need for long-term underground
observations and experiments at any prospective GDF site and that time must be
allowed for these (CoRWM doc. 2543).
164.
Time is also needed for RWMD to develop into an organisation that can deliver a
project of the size, duration and complexity of establishing a GDF. To date, geological
disposal has been a science-based concept and there are many challenges in
progressing it to an engineering project.
Near-Surface Disposal
165.
In the UK, consideration of near-surface disposal as an option for some HAW is at an
early stage. NDA has work in hand on the possible near-surface disposal of reactor
decommissioning wastes, including R&D on treatment of graphite. However, it is now
clear that there are operational wastes for which near-surface disposal could be an
appropriate option,
e.g. ion exchange resins and filters from Sizewell B and new PWRs.
The inclusion of near-surface disposal in the Scottish Government policy on HAW may
lead to the identification of further wastes that could be disposed of by this method.
166.
Near-surface disposal of some ILW has been practised in many other countries for
decades and technologies are well-established. The challenges for the UK are likely to
be in deciding where to site disposal facilities, including whether there should be facilities
that will hold both LLW and ILW. Early stakeholder and public involvement will be
essential.
9. 2010-11 WORK PROGRAMME
167.
CoRWM submitted its proposed work programme for 2010-13 to Government in
March 2010 (CoRWM doc. 2800). Its priorities for scrutiny and advice in 2010-11 are:
•
UK Government work to implement its policy on the long-term management of
higher activity wastes
•
Scottish Government development of its policy on the management of HAW and
of proposals for its implementation
•
NDA Strategy II
•
NDA work on the implementation of geological disposal.
168.
The Committee proposed to submit a formal response to the NDA consultation on its
Strategy II and to prepare position papers on:
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 41 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
•
the development of Scottish Government HAW policy
•
BGS screening out of areas in Cumbria unsuitable for geological disposal
•
NDA preparations for Stage 4 of the geological disposal facility siting process
•
PSE by all organisations involved in the management of HAW.
169.
Government approval of the 2010-13 work programme is awaited.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 42 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
10. REFERENCES
CoRWM Documents
CoRWM Title
doc. no.
700
CoRWM Recommendations to Government 2006.
2248
CoRWM’s Guiding Principles, January 2008.
2249
CoRWM Publication Scheme and Transparency Policy, January 2008.
2420
Coherence and Coordination of Regulatory Processes, September 2008.
2515.2
CoRWM Work Programme 2009-12, March 2009.
2500
Interim Storage of Higher Activity Wastes and the Management of Spent Fuels,
Plutonium and Uranium. CoRWM Report to Government. March 2009.
2539
Quality Control for CoRWM Documents, September 2009.
2543
Report on National Research and Development for Interim Storage and
Geological Disposal of Higher Activity Radioactive Wastes and Management of
Nuclear Materials. October 2009.
2550
Geological Disposal of Higher Activity Wastes. CoRWM Report to Government.
July 2009.
2558
Decision Making and Responsibilities in the Implementation of Geological
Disposal, March 2009.
2592
Log of Responses to Consultation on Full Draft of CoRWM’s Geological Disposal
Report, April-May 2009.
2593
Report of Stakeholder Workshop on Draft Geological Disposal Report,
Workington, 15 May 2009.
2624
Meeting with NDA on CoRWM Interim Storage Tasks for 2009-10, Warrington, 11
June 2009.
2630
Log of Responses to Consultation on CoRWM’s Report on National Research
and Development for Interim Storage and Geological Disposal of Higher Activity
Radioactive Wastes and Management of Nuclear Materials. October 2009.
2637
Note on Environment Agency Workshop on Approaches to Assuring the
Disposability of Radioactive Waste Packages, Warrington, 14 July 2009.
2664
Meeting with Delegation from Japan, August 2009.
2677
Report of CoRWM 9 September 2009 Stakeholder Workshop on Draft R&D
Report.
2690
CoRWM Informal Comments on DECC Pre-Consultation Discussion Paper on
the Key Factors that could be used to Compare One Option for Long-Term
Plutonium Management with Another. September 2009.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 43 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
CoRWM Title
doc. no.
2707
EA Workshop 29-30 September 2009, Assessing the Characterisation of
Geological Environments for Repository Implementation, CoRWM Report,
November 2009.
2711
BGS Screening Peer Review: CoRWM Advice to the West Cumbria MRWS
Partnership, December 2009.
2714
Geological Disposal: Planning for Implementation. Meeting with NDA, 23 October
2009.
2718
CoRWM Informal Comments on DECC Pre-Consultation Discussion Paper on
Decision Methodology and Timetable for Decision Making on Long-Term
Plutonium Management. November 2009.
2719
Response from Members of CoRWM to the House of Lords Science and
Technology Committee Call for Evidence on Setting Science and Technology
Research Funding Priorities, revised November 2009.
2725
Meeting with US Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, London, 12 November
2009.
2729
Minutes of CoRWM Plenary Meeting, York, 19 November 2009.
2723
Options for the Long-Term Management of the UK’s Separated Plutonium:
Recent History and the Current Situation. November 2009.
2733
New Build Wastes: Preparation of CoRWM Response to DECC Consultation on
Draft National Policy Statement, Draft 4, January 2010.
2734
NuLeAF and the MRWS Process: presentation to CoRWM by Fred Barker,
Executive Director of NuLeAF, December 2009.
2740
CoRWM’s Understanding of the UK Requirements for the Assessment and
Mitigation of the Risks of Aircraft Impact on Stores for Higher Activity Wastes and
Spent Fuel. February 2010.
2743
Minutes of Plenary Meeting 16-17 December 2009, London.
2744
West Cumbria MRWS Partnership: presentation to CoRWM by Elaine Woodburn,
Leader of Copeland Borough Council, December 2009.
2746
CoRWM Meeting with the Office for Civil Nuclear Security, Harwell, 7 December
2009.
2747
CoRWM Meeting with Regulators’ Generic Design Assessment Team, London, 8
December 2009.
2748
Response from the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management to the
Government Consultation on the Draft National Policy Statements for Energy
Infrastructure, March 2010.
2749
CoRWM’s Statement of its Position on New Build Wastes, March 2010.
2750
Brian Clark Letter and Questionnaire on PSE, January 2010.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 44 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
CoRWM Title
doc. no.
2755
Information on New Build Wastes Submitted to CoRWM by Stakeholders,
February 2010.
2756
Evidence from the Chair of CoRWM to the House of Lords Science and
Technology Committee Call for Evidence on Radioactive Waste Management,
January 2010.
2764
CoRWM Meeting with Department for Transport, London, 15 January 2010.
2765
CoRWM Meeting with Westinghouse, Preston, 20 January 2010.
2766
CoRWM Meeting with NDA on R&D, Warrington, 19 January 2010. (in draft)
2767
CoRWM Meeting with EDF and AREVA, London, 22 January 2010.
2770
Minutes of Plenary Meeting 27 January 2010, London.
2771
Quality Control for CoRWM Documents, February 2010.
2776
CoRWM Meeting with NDA on RWMD R&D Programme to Support Geological
Disposal, 28 January 2010.
2779
Issues for Plenary Discussion on Scottish Government Higher Activity Waste
Policy Consultation Documents, February 2010.
2782
Task Group 4 Meeting with RWMD on Moving from Areas to Sites, 28 January
2010.
2788
Minutes of Plenary Meeting 25 February 2010, Nottingham.
2789
Addendum to Evidence from the Chair of CoRWM to the House of Lords Science
and Technology Committee Call for Evidence on Radioactive Waste
Management, March 2010.
2790
Notes of the Meeting between the Steering Group of the West Cumbria MRWS
Partnership and CoRWM, 23 February 2010.
2792
CoRWM Meeting with NDA on HAW Topic Strategy and Related Matters,
Warrington, 1 March 2010.
2793
CoRWM Meeting with NDA to Discuss Topic Strategies for Spent Fuels and
Nuclear Materials and Related Matters, Manchester, 3 March 2010.
2795
Response from CoRWM to the Scottish Government Consultation on Scotland’s
Higher Activity Radioactive Waste Policy, April 2010.
2797
CoRWM Chair’s Meeting with NDA Chief Executive Officer, London, 4 March
2010.
2798
Reviewing the Effectiveness of the Committee, April 2010.
2800
CoRWM Proposed Programme of Work 2010-2013, March 2010.
2801
CoRWM Visit to BGS, Keyworth, 24 February 2010.
2802
CoRWM Visit to Hunterston A&B Sites, 9-10 March 2010.
2803
NDA National Stakeholder Meeting, Manchester, 16-18 March 2010.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 45 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
CoRWM Title
doc. no.
2806
CoRWM Procedures for Formulating Advice, March 2010.
2809
CoRWM Visit to Hinkley Point A&B Sites, 9-10 March 2010.
2811
Meeting with NII, EA and SEPA to Discuss Progress by NDA and Others in
Developing Strategies for the Management of Higher Activity Wastes, Spent
Fuels and Nuclear Materials, Manchester, 26 March 2010.
2821
CoRWM Comments on Recommendations in the 2nd Report of Session 2009-10
by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, Radioactive Waste
Management: a further update (HL Paper 95), May 2010 (in draft).
2823
Risk and Challenges Associated with Recycling and Waste Disposal: Korean
Perspective: presentation by Yongsoo Hwang, Korean Energy Research
Institute, September 2009.
Other Documents
British Energy, 2009.
Managing Spent Fuel at Sizewell B. Submission of Planning
Application and Environmental Statement to the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
DECC, Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly Government, DoENI, 2009.
UK Government
and Devolved Administration Response to the CoRWM Report on ‘Interim Storage of Higher
Activity Wastes and the Management of Spent Fuels, Plutonium and Uranium’. (CoRWM
doc. 2632)
DECC and DoENI, 2009.
Response of the UK Government and the Department of the
Environment, Northern Ireland to the CoRWM Report on ‘Geological Disposal of Higher
Activity Radioactive Wastes’. (CoRWM doc. 2727)
Defra
et al., 2008.
Managing Radioactive Waste Safely. A Framework for Implementing
Geological Disposal. Cm 7386.
Defra and NDA, 2008.
The 2007 UK Radioactive Waste Inventory. Main Report.
Defra/RAS/08.002, NDA/RWMD/004.
Defra
et al., 2006.
Response by the UK Government and the Devolved Administrations to
the Report and Recommendations from the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management
(CoRWM).
Environment Agency, 2010.
Environment Agency Scrutiny of RWMD’s Work Relating to the
Geological Disposal Facility, Annual Review 2008/09. NWAT/NDA/RWMD/2009/001. Issue
1, January 2010.
Environment Council, 2009.
Summary Report of DECC Workshop on the Long Term
Management of the UK’s Separated Civil Plutonium, 21 May 2009.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 46 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
HSE, EA and SEPA, 2010.
Joint Guidance on the Management of Higher Activity
Radioactive Waste on Nuclear Licensed Sites. This consists of the following documents:
•
Fundamentals
•
Overview and Glossary
•
Part 1: The Regulatory Process
•
Part 2: Radioactive Waste Management Cases
•
Part 3a: Waste Minimisation, Characterisation and Segregation
•
Part 3b: Conditioning and Disposability (for trial use and comment)
•
Part 3c: Storage of Radioactive Waste (for trial use and comment).
•
Part 3d: Managing Information and Records relating to Radioactive Waste.
House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, 2010a.
2nd Report of Session 2009-10.
Radioactive Waste Management: a further update. HL Paper 95.
House of Lords, 2010b.
Setting Priorities for Publicly Funded Research. House of Lords
Science and Technology Committee, 3rd Report of Session 2009-10. HL Paper 104.
NDA, 2009a.
The NDA’s Research and Development Strategy to Underpin Geological
Disposal of the UK’s Higher Activity Radioactive Wastes. NDA, 2009b.
Geological Disposal: A Public and Stakeholder Engagement and
Communications Strategy. Report NDA/RWMD/015. July 2009.
NDA, 2009c.
Key Aspects of RWMD’s Approach to Optimisation of the Geological Disposal
Facility. Draft RWMD document. August 2009.
NDA, 2009d.
Geological Disposal: A Strategy for Sustainability Appraisal and Environmental
Assessment. July 2009.
NDA, 2009e.
Geological Disposal. NDA RWMD Interactions with Waste Packagers on Plans
for Packaging Radioactive Wastes April 2008-March 2009. NDA Report No.
NDA/RWMD/012. September 2009.
NDA, 2010.
Business Plan 2010-13.
Quintessa, 2009.
Assessing the Characterisation of Geological Environments for Repository
Implementation. Environment Agency Workshop 29-30 September 2009. Quintessa QRS-
1398E-TN6, October 2009.
Scottish Government, 2010.
Scotland’s Higher Activity Radioactive Waste Policy,
Consultation 2010.
West Cumbria MRWS Partnership, 2010a.
Work Programme for 2010-11. Document No.
13.1 draft 15 March 2010.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 47 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
West Cumbria MRWS Partnership, 2010b.
Specification for Peer Review of the BGS
Geological Sub-Surface Screening Report. Document No. 53, draft 2 February 2010.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 48 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
ANNEX A
CoRWM TERMS OF REFERENCE
Introduction A1. Following the announcements by UK Government and the devolved administrations
(Government), on 25 October 2006, a new Committee on Radioactive Waste Management
(CoRWM) will be appointed under these revised terms of reference designed to meet the
future needs of the Government’s Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) programme.
The Committee will be jointly appointed by UK Government and relevant devolved
administration Ministers. Details of its roles, responsibilities and membership are outlined
below.
CoRWM’s Role and Responsibilities A2. 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.
A3. 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.
A4. 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, CoRWM will provide an annual report of its work to Government.
A5. 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 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.
A6. With the agreement of CoRWM’s sponsoring Ministers, other parts of Government, the
NDA and the regulatory bodies may request independent advice from CoRWM. Relevant
Parliamentary / Assembly Committees may also propose work to sponsoring Ministers, for
consideration in the work programme. CoRWM’s priority role is set out in paragraph 2
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 49 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
although sponsoring Ministers may also ask the Committee to provide advice on other
radioactive waste management issues as necessary.
A7. In delivering its annual work programme, and where there is a common interest, the
Committee will liaise with appropriate advisory bodies including Health and Safety
Commission advisory bodies, and any advisory bodies established by the environment
agencies.
A8. CoRWM shall consist of a Chair and up to fourteen members, one of whom will be
appointed by Ministers as Deputy Chair on the recommendation of the Chair. Seats will not
be representative of organisation or sectoral interests and the skills and expertise which will
need to be available to the Committee will vary depending on the programme of work. For
example, the relevant skills may include: radioactive waste management, nuclear science,
radiation protection, environmental law, environment issues, social science (including public
and stakeholder engagement), geology / geochemistry / hydrogeology, finance / economics,
civil engineering / underground construction technology, geological disposal facility
performance / safety issues, materials science, environmental impact assessment, local
Government, planning, regulatory processes and ethics. Sponsoring Ministers may review
the membership of the Committee, and the skills and expertise required.
A9. Appointments will be made following the Office of the Commissioner for Public
Appointments (OCPA) code of practice. Initial appointments will be for three years and
sponsoring Ministers retain the right to terminate appointments at any time in light of
individual members’ performance, changes in CoRWM’s work requirements, or completion
of the work required of CoRWM.
A10. The Committee, as agreed in the annual plans, may co-opt additional expertise to form
or support temporary sub-groups set up to examine specific and defined problems.
Programme of work A11. To support its work, CoRWM will need to familiarise itself with Government policy in
this area, including ongoing meetings with relevant Government departments and the NDA.
The outline framework within which CoRWM is then expected to work is:
(i)
recognising the policy framework within which it will operate including the roles
and responsibilities of Government and the NDA in relation to CoRWM’s own
advisory role;
(ii)
scrutinising Government and NDA proposals, plans and programmes to
implement geological disposal and other radioactive waste management issues on
which Government might seek advice as agreed in CoRWM’s work plan;
(iii)
formulation of advice and reporting to Government based on the best available
evidence and informed by the views of stakeholders and the public.
A12. CoRWM will prepare its draft work programme, within this outline framework, in
conjunction with Government, the NDA and regulators, taking account of work by other
advisory bodies (see paragraph 7 above). The programme will include details of specific
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 50 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
areas of work, reports which it intends to produce, the proposed use of sub-groups and any
other activities or events, including proposals for public and stakeholder engagement.
CoRWM will submit its first draft three-year work programme proposal to its sponsoring
Ministers for discussion and agreement at an appropriate early stage following appointment
of the full Committee. Subsequent three-year work programmes will be agreed annually on a
rolling basis.
A13. In familiarising themselves with the relevant background and issues, Members will
make themselves aware, and take account, of previous engagement and reports in the
Managing Radioactive Waste Safely programme, the UK Radioactive Waste Inventory and
the nature of current and expected future UK holdings of plutonium, uranium and spent
nuclear fuel. CoRWM will take account of existing technical assessments and research into
radioactive waste management in the UK and elsewhere. In particular, it is recognised that
CoRWM will need to engage with the NDA given that the Committee’s advice will directly
impinge on the long-term responsibilities of the NDA. CoRWM will also take account of other
relevant policy developments.
A14. The Chair will submit a report to Ministers by 30 June each year on the delivery of the
agreed work programme. This will be made available in the UK and Scottish Parliament, the
National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Access to other sources of expertise A15. Members of CoRWM itself will not have all the skills and expertise necessary to advise
Government. The Committee will need to decide how best to secure access to other
appropriate sources of expert input during the course of its work. Within this, it will have the
option of setting up expert sub-groups containing both Members of CoRWM itself and other
appropriate co-opted persons. A member of CoRWM will chair any sub-group of this nature
and ensure its effective operation, as well as provide a clear line of responsibility and
accountability to the main Committee, and hence to Ministers. This approach will enable the
Committee to draw on a broad range of expertise in the UK and elsewhere.
A16. The number of such sub-groups will be kept to the minimum necessary. Their role will
be that of providing advice for the main Committee to consider and assess as it sees fit, and
managing any activity which CoRWM delegates to them. It will be for the main Committee to
assess and decide upon the advice it receives from such sub-groups. CoRWM may also
utilise other appropriate means of securing expert input, such as sponsored meetings and
seminars. The Chair will ensure that sub-group work and all other activities are closely
integrated.
Public and stakeholder engagement A17. CoRWM must continue to inspire public confidence in the way in which it works. In
order to secure such confidence in its advice it will work in an open and transparent manner.
Hence, its work should be characterised by:
• a published reporting and transparency policy;
• relevant public and stakeholder engagement as required;
• clear communications including the use of plain English, publishing its advice (and
the underpinning evidence) in a way that is meaningful to the non-expert;
• making information accessible;
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 51 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
• encouraging people to ask questions or make their views known and listening to
their concerns;
• providing opportunities for people to challenge information, for example by making
clear the sources of information and points of view on which the Committee’s advice
is based;
• holding a number of its meetings in public.
Responsibilities of the committee and its members A18. CoRWM will have a corporate responsibility to deliver its advice to sponsoring Ministers
in accordance with agreed work plans. It will be for Ministers, with appropriate reference to
their respective Parliaments and Assembly, to take decisions on the advice it receives and to
give directions to the NDA as necessary on any subsequent changes required in the delivery
of geological disposal of the UK’s solid radioactive waste.
A19. All members will need to be effective team workers, with good analytical skills and good
judgement besides a strong interest in the process of decision-making on difficult issues. A
number of them will need experience of project management, advising on scientific and
technical issues directly relating to radioactive waste management, public and stakeholder
engagement, excellent drafting and communication skills, or business experience and
knowledge of economics.
A20. The Chair, in addition, will be capable of successfully and objectively leading
committee-based projects, grasping complex technical issues, and managing a diverse
group effectively and delivering substantial results, presenting progress and outcomes in
public. He or she will be a person with appropriate stature and credibility.
Role of the Chair A21. The Chair will be responsible for supervising the CoRWM work programme and
ensuring that the Committee’s objectives are achieved. The Chair will be responsible for
advising Ministers promptly if he or she anticipates that the Committee will not complete its
agreed work programme indicating what remedial action might be taken. He or she will be
the main point of contact with the public and the media, in presenting progress and
answering questions. The Chair will meet Ministers on appointment, and then at least
annually along with other members as appropriate. Notes of these meetings will be
published. The Chair will ensure CoRWM submits its annual written report to Ministers, by
30 June of each year. The Chair may be required to present the position of CoRWM to
Parliament or Assembly committees and representatives as appropriate. The report will set
out, among other things, CoRWM’s progress with the agreed work programme, advice
deriving from it and costs incurred. Ministers will also appoint a Deputy Chair who can assist
the Chair as the latter sees fit.
Role of Members A22. Members will work, under the Chair’s supervision, to the programme agreed with
sponsoring Ministers, so as to ensure its satisfactory delivery. Members will have a collective
responsibility to ensure achievement of CoRWM’s objectives and delivery of its work
programme. Individual Members may be appointed by the Chair to undertake specific, active
roles, for example chairing sub-groups or in representing CoRWM in meetings with the
public, organisations who are contributing to the work, or the media. All members will abide
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 52 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
by CoRWM’s Code of Practice and will be subject to individual performance appraisal as laid
down by the Cabinet Office guide (see next paragraph).
Standards A23. CoRWM is set up by, and answerable to Ministers and is funded by the taxpayer. It
must therefore comply with the Cabinet Office guide “Public Bodies: a Guide for
Departments”
(http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/other/agencies/publications/pdf/public_bodies_2006/1_case_
assessment.pdf).
A24. These and other relevant procedural requirements will be set out in CoRWM’s Code of
Practice which Members will agree to, prior to appointment.
Resources A25. Sponsoring Ministers will provide CoRWM with resources – both staff and financial – to
enable it to carry out its agreed programme of work. These will include a secretariat which
will help CoRWM carry out its work programme including, at the outset, providing reading
material and arranging for any further briefings and visits. The Chair and Members will have
a collective responsibility for delivering the work programme within the agreed budget,
although the Chair may request sponsoring Ministers for adjustment to this budget should
this be considered necessary.
Payments A26. The Chair and Members will be paid for their work for CoRWM at agreed daily rates.
They will also be fully reimbursed for all reasonable travel and subsistence costs incurred
during the course of their work.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 53 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
ANNEX B
CoRWM MEMBERS
Robert Pickard (Chair) – is Emeritus Professor of Neurobiology at the University of Cardiff,
Visiting Professor at the Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, and Fellow of the Institute
of Biology and the Royal Society of Medicine. Formerly he was Chairman of the Consumers’
Association
Which? and Director-General of the British Nutrition Foundation. For the
Department of Health and the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, Professor Pickard
was also Chairman of the national NGO Forum, which facilitated the interface between
government policymakers and 104 NGOs working for health improvements. He is an
international authority on the biology of honeybees and pioneered the development of solid-
state, neural microbiosensors in the UK.
William Lee (Deputy Chair) – is until August 2010 Head of Materials at Imperial College
London. He has a Physical Metallurgy BSc from Aston, a DPhil in Radiation Damage Studies
from Oxford and has held academic positions in the USA (Case Western Reserve University,
Cleveland and Ohio State University) and in the UK, notably at Sheffield University where he
was Director of BNFL’s University Research Alliance on Waste Immobilisation. He is a
member of the International Commission on Glass Technical Committee on Nuclear and
Hazardous Waste Vitrification and Chair of the International Ceramic Federation Technical
Committee on Ceramics in Nuclear Applications. He is a Fellow of the American Ceramic
Society, the City and Guilds Institute and the Institute of Materials.
David Broughton – is a Chartered Engineer and a Member of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers. He has 26 years experience in professional engineering and management of
complex nuclear projects. Now retired, he worked at UKAEA Dounreay, Caithness from
1981 until 2007, where he was responsible for Dounreay’s major radioactive waste
management projects. These included new low level waste disposal facilities, new
intermediate level waste encapsulation and storage facilities, the future retrieval of waste
from the Dounreay shaft and the shaft isolation project. He is experienced in both engaging
stakeholders in projects that have many options and technical issues to consider, and
guiding projects through the regulatory and planning processes.
Margaret Burns – is Chair of Health Scotland and
a part-time teaching fellow in the Law
Department of the University of Aberdeen. She was a member of the Health and Safety
Commission for nine years, representing the public interest and the devolved
administrations. As a Commissioner she chaired HSC's Rail Industry Advisory Committee
and the Partnership for Health and Safety in Scotland and had particular responsibility for
the offshore oil industry and the nuclear industry. In 2003 she was awarded the CBE for
services to health and safety. She has extensive experience of working with consumer
organisations, such as the Scottish Consumer Council and Consumers' Association, and is
presently a member of the National Consumer Council's Advisory Group.
Brian D Clark – is Professor of Environmental Management and Planning at Aberdeen
University. He is a Board Member of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)
and Chairman of the North Region Board and the Planning & Finance Committee of SEPA.
He served on the Committee for Radioactive Waste Management from 2003 to 2007. With
forty years experience, he is a specialist in environmental impact assessment (EIA),
strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and urban and rural planning. He was honoured
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 54 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
in 1987 by being made a founder member of UNEP’s Global 500 Award. He is a governor of
the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute and was a founder member of the Institute of
Environmental Assessment (IEA), now the Institute of Environmental Management and
Assessment (IEMA) and chairs its Technical Committee.
Mark Dutton – has a doctorate in high energy physics and a 38 year career based at the
National Nuclear Corporation. Specialising in design and safety case issues associated with
radiological protection, nuclear safety and radioactive waste management, he continues to
work as a nuclear consultant. He served on the Committee for Radioactive Waste
Management from 2003-2007. He is a Fellow of the Institution of Nuclear Engineers, co-
author of two Safety Guides published by the International Atomic Energy Agency and has
reviewed the safety of reactors in Iran and Pakistan on behalf of the Agency. He is a
member of the Defence Nuclear Safety Committee of the Ministry of Defence and a member
of the Presidential Nuclear Safety Committee of Armenia.
Fergus Gibb – is Emeritus Professor of Petrology & Geochemistry in the Department of
Engineering Materials, University of Sheffield. He has over 40 years’ teaching and research
experience in mineralogy, petrology, geochemistry and other areas of geoscience. A
specialist on igneous intrusions, he is a former Vice-President of the Mineralogical Society
and an Elected Fellow of the Mineralogical Society of America. A long-standing research
interest in the geological disposal of nuclear wastes has led to over 25 papers on the subject
and national and international recognition as an authority on deep borehole disposal. On the
strength of the potential strategic importance of this research work, Professor Gibb's post at
the University of Sheffield was part-funded for a period by the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority but the conduct of the work was, and remains, independent of the NDA and the
nuclear industry.
Simon Harley – is Professor of Lower Crustal Processes in the School of Geosciences at
the University of Edinburgh. An international expert on the evolution of continental crust, his
research integrates geological mapping with experimental and microanalytical studies of the
stabilities of minerals and their behaviour at high temperatures and pressures. He has
conducted geological mapping projects in diverse and complex basement areas in Australia,
India, Norway, Greenland, Scotland and Antarctica. Professor Harley is a Fellow of the
Royal Society of Edinburgh and in 2002 was awarded the Imperial Polar Medal in
recognition of his contributions to Antarctic Earth Science.
Marion Hill – is an independent consultant with 35 years’ experience in standards for and
assessments of the radiological impact of the nuclear industry on the public and the
environment. She specialises in policies, strategies and standards for the management of
radioactive wastes and radioactively contaminated land. Her early career was at the National
Radiological Protection Board (now part of the Health Protection Agency), from where she
moved into consultancy. Her experience includes national and international work on policy
and regulatory topics, and environmental impact assessments for nuclear installations in the
UK and overseas. She was a member of the Health and Safety Commission’s Nuclear
Safety Advisory Committee (NuSAC) from 2006 to 2008, when it was suspended.
Francis Livens – has held a radiochemistry position at the University of Manchester since
1991. He worked for over 25 years in environmental radioactivity and actinide chemistry,
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 55 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
starting his career with the Natural Environment Research Council, where he was involved in
the response to the Chernobyl accident. At the University of Manchester, he has worked in
many aspects of nuclear fuel cycle research, including effluent treatment, waste
immobilisation and actinide chemistry. He was the founding director of the Centre for
Radiochemistry Research, established in Manchester in 1999 and is now Research Director
of the Dalton Nuclear Institute and Director of the EPSRC-funded, Manchester/Sheffield
Nuclear Fission Doctoral Training Centre. He has acted as an advisor to the nuclear industry
both in the UK and overseas.
Rebecca Lunn – is a Reader in Civil Engineering at the University of Strathclyde. She has
over 15 years of research experience in hydrogeology, with a particular focus on deep flow
systems, hydromechanics and the spatial and temporal evolution of rock permeability. Her
research experience is multi-disciplinary and she currently collaborates closely with
structural geologists, seismologists, mathematicians and, more recently, microbiologists,
psychologists and statisticians. Current research interests include: development of computer
models to simulate changes in rock permeability over time surrounding geological faults, with
a view to improving flow predictions for deep radioactive waste disposal and carbon dioxide
sequestration; understanding the relationship between subsurface groundwater flow and
earthquakes; and exploring public understanding of uncertain science, such as flood
prediction, to inform the regulators’ approach to public information and decision making.
Leslie Netherton – has over 30 years local government experience, where he specialised in
health and safety, food safety, environmental protection and emergency planning. As Head
of Service with Plymouth City Council from 1998-2007 he had responsibility for civil
protection, waste management, cemeteries, building control, consumer protection,
sustainability and environmental health. As lead Authority officer for the nuclear submarine
refitting facility at Devonport Royal Dockyard, he was involved with major planning
applications, discharge consent consultations, offsite emergency planning and extensive
stakeholder engagement. He is Chair of the Ministry of Defence Advisory Group for its
Submarine Dismantling Project and sits on the project Steering Group. He currently runs an
environmental health consultancy company and has been an active member of the
Chartered Institute of Environmental Health.
John Rennilson – is a Chartered Town Planner and a Chartered Surveyor with over 37
years’ experience in local government. He served as County Planning Officer of North
Yorkshire County Council (1984-1996) planning and as Director of Planning & Development
for Highland Council (1996-2008). His career has involved balancing development needs
and environmental issues at a strategic, as well as at a local, level. He has had considerable
experience of the energy industry, including development of the Selby Coalfield, coal-fired
electricity generation at Drax and Eggborough, and decommissioning Dounreay, as well as
renewable electricity generation and transmission issues across the Highlands.
Andrew Sloan – is a chartered engineer, a Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers and a
Visiting Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering of the University of Strathclyde. He
is a director of the specialist consulting engineering firm Donaldson Associates Ltd. He
graduated in geology from the University of Edinburgh and has an MSc in Engineering
Geology from the University of Leeds. With over 20 years’ experience, he is a specialist in
geotechnical engineering with particular emphasis on the development of underground
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 56 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
space. He has experience in the management and delivery of technically challenging and
complex ground engineering projects in a range of regulated industries. He led the
independent technical check of the grouting aspects of the Shaft Isolation Project at
Dounreay and has worked on underground engineering projects in North America, Europe,
Africa and South East Asia.
Lynda Warren – is Emeritus Professor of Environmental Law at Aberystwyth University and
a member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. She has postgraduate
degrees in marine biology and law and has pursued an academic career first in biology and
latterly in environmental law. She has over 100 academic publications, including a number
on radioactive waste management law and policy. Lynda has 15 years experience of
radioactive waste management policy. She was a member of CoRWM from 2003 - 2007
and, before that, a member of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee
(RWMAC), chairing its working group on Dounreay. She is currently a member of SEPA s
Dounreay Particles Advisory Group and an associate of IDM, a consultancy engaged in
environmental policy advisory work, mainly in the nuclear sector.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 57 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
ANNEX C
CoRWM EXPENDITURE 2009-10
(to be added)
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 58 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
ANNEX D
RECOMMENDATIONS IN CoRWM’s 2009 REPORTS TO GOVERNMENT
Recommendations in CoRWM’s Report on Interim Storage
The recommendations in CoRWM’s March 2009 report to Government on interim storage
(CoRWM doc. 2500) are as follows.
Recommendation 1
CoRWM recommends to Government that there should be greater UK-wide strategic co-
ordination of:
•
the conditioning, packaging and storage of higher activity wastes
•
the management of all spent fuels
•
the management of plutonium
•
the management of uranic materials
•
future transport arrangements for radioactive wastes and nuclear materials.
The co-ordination should include agreement on priorities.
Recommendation 2
CoRWM recommends to Government that appropriate information be made publicly
available on the management of higher activity wastes, spent fuels, plutonium and uranium.
There is a need to summarise, for a variety of readerships, the progress to date, the
management options under consideration for the future, and the issues involved in choosing
between alternative options. The information should complement that on waste quantities
and characteristics given in the various documents about the UK Radioactive Waste
Inventory.
Recommendation 3 CoRWM recommends to Government that more information be made available to the public
about how the security of the storage and transport of radioactive wastes, spent fuels,
plutonium and uranium is assured. The objective should be to give the public more insights
into security issues, without compromising security in any way. In deciding what information
should be made available, account should be taken of existing and proposed practices in
countries with similar security needs to the UK and a strong freedom of information culture
(for example, the USA
).
Recommendation 4
CoRWM recommends to Government that there be more co-ordination of PSE between the
NDA and other UK nuclear industry organisations, at national, regional and local levels. The
objective should be to ensure that there is sufficient stakeholder participation in decision-
making processes for the conditioning, packaging, storage and transport of higher activity
wastes, and the management of spent fuels, plutonium and uranium, without incurring
“stakeholder fatigue”.
Recommendations in CoRWM’s Report on Geological Disposal
The recommendations in CoRWM’s July 2009 report to Government on geological disposal
(CoRWM doc. 2550) are as follows.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 59 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
Recommendation 1
CoRWM recommends to Government that it begins work now to develop the principles to be
used in deriving Community Benefits Packages and the process by which Packages would
be agreed. This should include work on providing confidence that, once agreed, such
packages will be delivered.
Recommendation 2
CoRWM recommends to Government that it should explain how local stakeholders would
have an opportunity to influence the outcome of the planning application process for a GDF
if the application is referred to the Infrastructure Planning Commission.
Recommendation 3
CoRWM recommends to Government that the NDA and the Government should discuss with
communities, that have expressed an interest, the advantages and disadvantages of single-
and two-stage planning applications for underground investigations and construction of a
GDF. In particular, the discussions should cover the hold points, that could be subject to
conditions attached to approval of a single application, and opportunities for local
stakeholder engagement at such hold points.
Recommendation 4
CoRWM recommends to Government that it should ensure that the NDA carries out option
assessments in which a wide range of geological disposal concepts is considered. These
should include disposal in facilities constructed using various techniques, at depths ranging
from about 200m to more than 1km, disposal of all higher activity wastes in a single facility,
separate facilities for various types of higher activity wastes, and facilities incorporating
different degrees of retrievability. A wide range of stakeholders should be involved in these
assessments.
Recommendation 5
CoRWM recommends to Government that it should ensure that the NDA has an integrated
process in place for geological disposal facility design, site assessments and safety case
development. The process should be described in publicly available documents that have
been reviewed by independent experts and the regulators.
Recommendations in CoRWM’s Report on R&D
The recommendations in CoRWM’s October 2009 report to Government on R&D (CoRWM
doc. 2543) are as follows.
Recommendation 1
CoRWM recommends to Government that it ensures that there is strategic co-ordination of
UK R&D for the management of higher activity wastes. Such co-ordination is required within
the NDA, between the NDA and the rest of the nuclear industry, amongst the Research
Councils and between the whole of the nuclear industry, its regulators and the Research
Councils.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 60 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
Recommendation 2
CoRWM recommends to Government that it ensures that the Environment Agency and the
Scottish Environment Protection Agency obtain the resources that they need to access and
commission the additional independent research required to support them fully in their
regulation of the management of higher activity wastes.
Recommendation 3
CoRWM recommends to Government that it assigns to a single organisation the
responsibility for providing national leadership and strategic direction for provision of R&D
skills relevant to the long-term management of radioactive wastes.
Recommendation 4 CoRWM recommends to Government that it ensures that facilities for research with highly
radioactive materials are improved and their capability enhanced so that they can be used
for the full spectrum of research relevant to the long-term management of higher activity
wastes. These facilities should be accessible to all researchers who need them.
Recommendation 5
CoRWM recommends to Government that an underground research facility be constructed
at any site where it is proposed to construct a geological disposal facility.
Recommendation 6
CoRWM recommends to Government that mechanisms are put in place to ensure that a
wider range of stakeholders than to date will be involved in establishing R&D requirements
for the long-term management of higher activity wastes and that accessible information will
be made available to the public about R&D needs, plans and progress.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 61 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
ANNEX E
GLOSSARY AND ACRONYM LIST
Glossary
Active facility
A facility where radioactive materials can be used.
[
Such facilities are subject to safety, security and environmental
regulation.]
Advanced Gas-
A UK designed, gas-cooled reactor with a graphite moderator.
Cooled Reactor
[
It uses enriched uranium oxide fuel with steel cladding and
(AGR)
graphite sleeves. The primary coolant is carbon dioxide.]
Applied research
Investigation directed primarily towards a specific practical aim or
objective, which can involve using existing knowledge and
understanding or acquiring new knowledge.
Basic research
See “Fundamental research”.
Benefits Package
See “Community Benefits Package”.
Committed waste
Radioactive waste that will arise in future from the operation or
decommissioning of existing nuclear facilities.
[
As distinct from existing waste, which already exists, and new build
waste, which will only arise if new facilities are built.]
Community Benefits
A set of measures to enhance the social and economic well-being
Package
of a community that hosts a geological disposal facility, to
recognise that the community is performing an essential service to
the country.
Community Siting
A partnership of organisations with interests in the community that
Partnership
has expressed an interest in hosting a geological disposal facility.
[
The partnership is expected to involve the host community, the
“Decision Making Body” (or Bodies) and “Wider Local Interests”. It
will work with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and other
relevant organisations to ensure local concerns are addressed
during the geological disposal facility siting process and will advise
the Decision Making Body (or Bodies).]
Conditioning
Any process used to prepare waste for long-term storage and/or
disposal.
[
Usually by converting it into a suitable solid form e.g. incorporation
in glass (vitrification), encapsulation in cement.]
Decision Making
The Local Authority that will make the decisions for a host
Body
community in the geological disposal facility siting process.
Decision to
A decision by a community to participate in the geological disposal
Participate
facility siting process, without commitment to eventually host a
facility.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 62 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
Desk-based studies
Review, summary, collation or evaluation of existing knowledge,
information, facts and research outcomes.
[In the context of the UK geological disposal siting process,
assessing the suitability of sites using existing knowledge about the
geology, surface environment, communities etc.]
Development
Progressive, systematic use of knowledge and understanding
gained from research directed towards the production or
improvement of materials, devices, systems or methods.
[
Includes the design and development of processes.]
Disposal
Emplacement of waste in an appropriate facility without the
intention of retrieving it.
[
Retrieval may be possible but if intended the appropriate term is
“storage”.]
Disposable
A waste package is disposable if it can be safely removed from a
store, transported to a disposal facility and emplaced in that facility,
and if it will play its planned role in ensuring the post-closure safety
of that facility.
Encapsulation
A process in which radioactive waste is physically enclosed in a
material with the aim of preventing radionuclides from escaping.
[
For intermediate level waste encapsulation is a type of
“conditioning”; the most commonly used encapsulants are types of
cement and others include polymers. For spent fuel encapsulation
is likely to entail placing the fuel in an inner canister that is then
placed in an outer, disposal canister. The canisters could be made
of different metals and might be filled with metal.]
Environmental
A permit issued by the Environment Agency under the
Permit
Environmental Permitting Regulations.
[
When the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 come into
force, Environmental Permits will replace registrations and
authorisations under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 in
England and Wales.]
Exotic fuel
Term used for any type of nuclear fuel that is not from a commercial
nuclear power reactor.
[
Mainly fuels from research reactors and nuclear powered
submarines.]
Expression of
A notification to Government by a community that it is interested in
Interest
entering discussions about involvement in the geological disposal
facility siting process, without commitment.
Fundamental
Original, exploratory investigation involving experimental or
research
theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge
and understanding of phenomena and observable facts without
necessarily having any immediate application or use in view.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 63 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
Generic Design
The generic assessment being undertaken by the Health and
Assessment (GDA)
Safety Executive and the Environment Agency of the suitability of
new reactor designs for use in the UK.
Geological disposal
Generally, emplacement in the Earth’s crust with no intent to
retrieve. Used specifically in the MRWS programme to mean
“disposal” of radioactive waste in an underground facility, where the
geology (rock structure) provides a barrier against escape of
radioactivity and where the depth, taken in the particular geological
context, substantially protects the waste from disturbances arising
at the surface.
Geological disposal
Any variant of geological disposal, including the use of a “mined
concept
repository”, “deep boreholes” and more than one “geological
disposal facility”.
Geological disposal
Any facility used for geological disposal.
facility (GDF)
[
Includes mined repositories, natural caverns, disused man-made
caverns or mines, and deep boreholes.]
Geological disposal
The detailed drawings and specifications that will allow construction
facility design
of a “geological disposal facility”.
[
Includes nuclear, civil, mechanical, electrical, materials, chemical,
geotechnical and geological engineering aspects.]
Geological
See “mined repository”.
repository
Higher activity waste Radioactive waste with activity above the thresholds for low level
(HAW)
waste (LLW),
i.e. above 4 GBq/tonne alpha activity or above 12
GBq/tonne beta gamma activity.
[
It is usually also taken to include LLW unsuitable for near-surface
disposal.]
High level waste
Radioactive waste in which the temperature may rise significantly
(HLW)
as a result of its radioactive content, so that this factor has to be
taken into account in the design of waste storage or disposal
facilities.
[
In practice the term is only used in the UK for the nitric acid
solutions arising from reprocessing spent fuels and for the vitrified
form of the solutes in these solutions.]
Historic waste,
See “legacy waste”.
historical waste
Host community
A community in which a geological disposal facility will be built.
[
It is a community in a small geographically well-defined area, such
as town or village, and includes the population of that area and the
owners of the land.]
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 64 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
Immobilisation
A conditioning process in which radioactive waste is chemically
incorporated into a material with the aim of preventing radionuclides
from moving.
[“
Vitrification” and incorporation in ceramics are types of
immobilisation processes.]
Interim storage
Storage of radioactive waste prior to implementing a final
management step, such as “geological disposal”.
Intermediate level
Radioactive waste exceeding the upper activity boundaries for “low
waste (ILW)
level waste” (
i.e. over 4 GBq/tonne alpha activity or 12 GBq/tonne
beta gamma activity) but for which its heat output need not be
taken into account in the design of storage or disposal facilities.
Legacy facility
A nuclear facility constructed several decades ago where waste
has been generated or stored.
Legacy waste
Radioactive waste that arose several decades ago.
[
A subset of existing waste; sometimes called “historic waste” or
“historical waste”. The term is usually reserved for wastes kept in,
or that have arisen in, legacy facilities.]
Long-term storage
Storage for more than about 100 years.
Low level waste
“Radioactive waste” with activity levels that do not exceed 4
(LLW)
GBq/tonne alpha activity or 12 GBq/tonne beta gamma activity.
[
Subsets of LLW include “very low level waste” (VLLW) and exempt
waste (i.e. “radioactive waste” with activity levels below those in the
various Exemption Orders made under the Radioactive Substances
Act).]
Magnox reactor
A UK designed gas-cooled reactor with a graphite moderator.
[
It uses uranium metal fuel with a magnesium alloy cladding.]
Mined repository
A facility specifically excavated and constructed for the “geological
disposal” of radioactive waste.
[“
Mined and engineered repository” is a more correct description.
Most designs consist of shafts or adits leading to tunnels and
vaults.]
Near-surface
Disposal at or close to the surface of the Earth.
disposal
[
Includes underground disposal in the Earth’s crust at depths less
than a few tens of metres, and emplacement in engineered
structures at or just below ground level. Formerly called “shallow
land burial” or emplacement in a “near surface repository”.]
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 65 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
Optimisation
A process of showing that risks have been reduced to a level
beyond which, on a balance of factors, no further reduction would
be worthwhile.
[
The optimisation principle encompasses various principles and
concepts used in health and safety regulation, environmental
protection and radiological protection (e.g. “as low as reasonably
practicable” (ALARP), “best available techniques” (BAT), “as low as
reasonably achievable” (ALARA). In the context of radioactive
waste management it always implies a need to identify, assess and
compare options for achieving an objective or carrying out an
operation.]
Overpack
An additional container for a waste package.
[
Usually to make it more suitable for storage, handling, transport or
disposal.]
Package
See “Waste package”.
Packaging
Placing waste into a container for long-term storage and/or
disposal.
[
In most cases this includes conditioning but sometimes waste is
simply placed in containers, with or without compaction to reduce
its volume.]
Primary research
The obtaining of knowledge, facts and data that did not previously
exist.
[
All fundamental and much applied research is primary.]
Pond
A water-filled structure in which nuclear fuel is stored.
[
Usually made of concrete, the water provides cooling and
shielding.]
Pressurised water
A nuclear reactor in which water is used as the coolant and
reactor (PWR)
moderator.
[
The fuel is enriched uranium oxide with “zircaloy” cladding. PWRs
operate above atmospheric pressure to prevent the water boiling. ]
Public
People who have no particular interest in, and are not affected by,
radioactive waste management.
[
CoRWM distinguishes between “stakeholders” and the public.]
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 66 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
Radioactive waste
Radioactive waste is defined in the Radioactive Substances Act
1993 and the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales)
Regulations 2010. In essence it is any substance for which there is
no further use and in which artificial radionuclides are present at
any level and/or natural radionuclides are present above the levels
given in Schedule 1 of the Act and the corresponding schedule in
the Regulations.
[
Note that spent fuels, plutonium and uranium are not radioactive
wastes unless it has been decided that there is no further use for
them and they are declared to be wastes.
This legal definition of
radioactive waste is under review and it is expected that a revised
definition will be put in place in 2010-2011.]
Radioactive waste
All the activities involved in managing radioactive wastes.
management
[
Includes minimising arisings, all types of treatment (e.g.
decontamination, sorting, segregation), “conditioning”, “packaging”
and “disposal”.]
Raw waste
Waste that has not been conditioned.
Repository
A facility where waste is emplaced for disposal.
[
Often used as shorthand for “mined repository”, but also used in
other contexts, e.g. the UK’s Low Level Waste Repository (LLWR).]
Requesting Parties
The organisations that have requested that their reactor designs be
considered in the Generic Design Assessment of new reactors by
the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency.
[
The current Requesting Parties are Westinghouse and
EDF/AREVA.]
Research
An investigation directed to the discovery of some fact or principle
by a course of study or scientific enquiry.
Retrievability
An ability to withdraw wastes from a disposal facility that is
achieved by means designed into the facility other than simply
reversing waste emplacement.
[
See also “reversibility” and “recoverability”.]
Safety assessment
An assessment of whether a nuclear facility or operation is or, if
particular actions are taken, will be safe.
Safety case
The complete set of arguments that demonstrates that a nuclear
facility or operation is or, if particular actions are taken, will be safe.
Spent fuel
Fuel that has been used in a nuclear reactor and for which there is
no further use as fuel.
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 67 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
Stakeholder
A person or organisation who has an interest in or is affected by
radioactive waste management.
[
In the context of CoRWM’s work, stakeholders include waste
producers, regulators, non-governmental organisations, local
authorities and communities near existing nuclear sites and
potential disposal sites.]
Stakeholder fatigue
A situation in which stakeholders are overwhelmed by
communications and consultations on a particular topic, and do not
respond to requests for their views.
Storage
Placing wastes or other materials in a facility with the intention of
retrieving them at a later date.
Strategy II
The name being given by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
to its second Strategy.
[
The first NDA Strategy was published in 2006. There will be a
public consultation on Strategy II in the autumn of 2010 and the
final version will be published by early April 2011, after approval by
Government.]
Surface-based
Investigations of a potential geological disposal site that are carried
investigations
out from the surface, rather than underground.
[
For example, seismic investigations and boreholes.]
Topic Strategy
A strategy developed by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority for
a particular topic within its remit.
[
For example, topic strategies are being developed for higher
activity wastes and for various types of spent fuels.]
Treatment
Any process used to make radioactive wastes suitable for the next
step in their management.
[
Treatment processes include sorting, decontamination, volume
reduction and all types of “conditioning”.]
Underground
A site or host rock specific underground facility for characterisation
research facility
and R&D related to “geological disposal”.
(URF)
Vitrification
The process of converting wastes into a glass or glass-like form.
Voluntarism
An approach to siting geological disposal facilities that involves
communities voluntarily expressing an interest in holding
discussions with Government, then deciding whether to participate
any further.
Waste package
A container and all its contents .
[
Includes the waste, any encapsulating material, any capping grout,
etc.]
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 68 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
Wider Local
Communities outside the “host community” that have an interest in
Interests
the development of a geological disposal facility.
[
For example, nearby villages, communities on transport routes to
the “host community”.]
Acronym List
AGR
advanced gas cooled reactor (A type of reactor with a graphite core, and
uranium oxide fuel in steel cladding with a graphite sleeve.)
BGS
British Geological Survey
COI
Central Office of Information (of the UK Government)
CoRWM
Committee on Radioactive Waste Management
COWAM
Community Waste Management (an EU project)
DECC
Department of Energy and Climate Change
Defra
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
DfT
Department for Transport
DoENI
Department of the Environment Northern Ireland
DSSC
disposal system safety case (being developed by NDA)
EA
Environment Agency, England and Wales
EDF
Electricité de France
EIA
environmental impact assessment
EPSRC
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
EU
European Union
GDA
Generic Design Assessment (of new nuclear reactors, carried out by the
regulators)
GDF
geological disposal facility
GRA
Guidance on Requirements for Authorisation (for disposal of solid
radioactive wastes, produced by the environment agencies)
HAW
higher activity waste
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 69 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
HLW
high level waste
HSE
Health and Safety Executive
IAEA
International Atomic Energy Agency (a United Nations agency)
ILW
intermediate level waste
IPC
Infrastructure Planning Commission (to be replaced by different fast-
track procedure for major projects)
IPT
Integrated Project Team (an NDA team for addressing a particular HAW
management issue)
LLW
low level waste
LoC
Letter of Compliance (previously Letter of Comfort)
MoD
Ministry of Defence
MOX
mixed oxide fuel (contains uranium and plutonium oxides)
MRWS
Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (the UK programme for the
management of higher activity wastes)
NDA
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
NDARB
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Research Board on nuclear
decommissioning and waste clean-up
NEA
Nuclear Energy Agency (part of the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development)
NERC
Natural Environment Research Council
NGO
non-governmental organisation
NIEA
Northern Ireland Environment Agency
NII
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (part of HSE)
NNL
National Nuclear Laboratory
NPS
National Policy Statement
NuLeAF
Nuclear Legacy Advisory Forum
NuSAC
Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee (now disbanded, advised HSE)
NWRF
Nuclear Waste Research Forum (a group convened by the NDA)
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 70 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
NWTRB
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (in the USA)
OCNS
Office of Civil Nuclear Security (part of HSE)
OECD
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
ONR
Office for Nuclear Regulation (An organisation to be set up within HSE,
incorporating NII, OCNS, UKSO, RMTT and TRANSEC. It is expected to
be fully operational by April 2011.)
PCM
plutonium contaminated material
PIP
provisional implementation plan (the NDA plan for implementation of
geological disposal)
PSE
public and stakeholder engagement
PWR
pressurised water reactor
R&D
research and development
RMTT
Radioactive Materials Transport Team (part of DfT)
RWMAC
Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee
RWMD
Radioactive Waste Management Directorate (of NDA)
RWPG
Radioactive Waste Policy Group (a UK Government group)
SDDG
Strategy Development and Delivery Group (for NDA, chaired by DECC)
SEA
strategic environmental assessment
SEPA
Scottish Environment Protection Agency
SLC
site licence company (a company that runs an NDA site, under contract
to the NDA, and holds the nuclear site licence)
SSG
Site Stakeholder Group (at NDA sites)
TRU
transuranic (in the USA the term TRU wastes is used for long-lived,
actinide-containing ILW, such as PCM)
TRANSEC
Transport Security and Contingencies Directorate (part of DfT)
UKAEA
United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (now used only as an
acronym, mainly as part of the names of the organisations into which the
Authority was split)
UKSO
United Kingdom Safeguards Office (part of HSE)
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 71 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
WAG
Welsh Assembly Government
WIPP
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (a geological disposal facility in New Mexico,
USA)
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 72 of 73
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION CoRWM doc.
2807
Draft 3 (27 May 2010)
FURTHER INFORMATION CoRWM contact details (Chair, Members, Secretariat):
0300 068 6112/6116
CoRWM Secretariat, Area 3D, 3 Whitehall Place, London SW1A 2AW
xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xxx.xx
website www.corwm.org.uk
2807 Draft 3 Annual Report 2009-10
Page 73 of 73
