Latest News

G20 Summit: Geological Disposal Update

i Apr 14th No Comments by

Last week we shared a report from one of Japan’s leading newspapers, The Mainichi, that claimed geological disposal would be discussed at the forthcoming G20 Summit.  We also said we’d seek to find out further information.

What we have found out:

  • The Japanese have been seeking other government’s support for an international conference on geological disposal through several international forum
  • As is usual for these Summits, the host organising country seeks to get issues it considers important onto the agenda
  • To their credit, the Japanese have identified geological disposal as an issue affecting all major economies, and want to place the environmental and ethical debate on a more global level, hence their desire to place this on the G20 table in some way
  • The behind-the-scenes horse-trading that goes on in advance of all such Summits may mean that the Japanese have to park their conference proposal for now

We keep a watching brief. Even if the conference proposal does not get raised at the G20 this time, the need to globalise the debate does not recede. The Japanese will certainly keep banging their drum.

However, the nature of any conference and subsequent global debate is important.  If it is just the same nuclear sector faces speaking only to each other, “the converted”, then little progress is likely to be made.  It is time to include community voices in the debate.  There is a sound basis to build upon the initial work of the ground-breaking IAEA technical workshop from last November, at which municipalities and community representatives from around the world gave a common message to the nuclear sector – listen to us, don’t lecture us.

The IAEA workshop revealed the many, largely unheard, community voices that provide powerful and relatable testimony in favour of geological disposal.  And in a world of fake news, faux science and information overload, these communities can create ashared repository of knowhow and experience which is more publicly trusted than anything a government, agency or NGO can ever hope to achieve.

World Update in under 2 minutes ….

i Nov 17th No Comments by

A quick 2-minute read, summarising major announcements and key progress during June from geological disposal programmes around the world – details on our international media coverage page:


Protests continue in Bosnia about Croatian planned low-level radioactive waste facility on their border. And while Croatia and Slovenia still can’t agree terms for a shared deep geological repository, Slovenia worries neighbouring countries by progressing plans for a new nuclear reactor.

In Belgium, Walloon municipalities object to a planned new interim surface radioactive waste store at the Tihange nuclear power plant. And in UK a public consultation starts on a low-level radioactive waste facility on Teesside, to which the mayor and other residents object.

Russia denies allegations that it’s “illegally” importing radioactive waste from Germany, and denies another set of allegations that its injecting liquid radwaste into deep geological layers. Moscow residents campaign against a new road, that might expose a radioactive waste dump during construction.

Dutch deny they’re sending radwaste to Russia, but Dutch regulator does approve COVRA (the national radwaste management agency) radioactive waste management plans. COVRA being sued by an environmental group over alleged “secret” research programme, but media also report positively on a public visit of COVRA radwaste storage facilities.

Sweden’s Environmental Court joins the nuclear regulator in approving expansion plans of its low-level waste facility, but lower contributions to the Nuclear Waste Fund are cited a key factor in Sweden’s raised public debt.

The French formal public debate on radioactive waste management and geological disposal ends, with Greenpeace publishing a report on where waste stored. Ten local authorities around the proposed Bure repository site sign an agreement on long term economic and community development.


As public hearing are held into Holtec’s planned temporary radioactive waste facility in New Mexico, indigenous peoples unanimously announce their opposition to it (and the other proposed facility in West Texas) — but pro-facility local groups hope approval will be given within 18 months. Holtec signs an agreement with a construction company in anticipation.

California’s Coastal Commission approves resumption of work on new radwaste stores at San Onofre power station, amid continued local opposition. Court throws out legal challenge to stop waste transfers.

American Council on Science & Health says radioactive waste is being transported safely, which is separately confirmed by a GAO Report. But Western Governors “disappointed” they wren’t more involved in developing a 5-year strategic plan for WIPP.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) holds hearings about how to enhance community involvement in the decommissioning process. Massachusetts sues the NRC over its approval of the sale of the Pilgrim plant to Holtec. NRC suspends review of low-level waste regulations.

Removal of radwaste from the Yankee site said to be ahead of schedule, with the new owners conscious they need to get it right to secure further large contracts.

Wyoming lawmakers assessing the risks/benefits of hosting radioactive waste facilities. Governor says he is open to the idea in principle.


Although no health risks, big row in Japan about why more wasn’t done to stop radioactive waste packages from floating away from Fukushima in flooding aftermath of Typhoon Hagibis.

Despite concerns the country is not ready to manage radioactive waste, Bangladeshi government approves new laws and creates new agency responsible for radioactive waste management and disposal.

Marshall Islands considering suing US, and French Polynesia thinking of suing France, for left-over radioactive waste from nuclear bomb resting era. US to give US$1.6m to investigate alleged ‘leak’ of ageing radioactive waste store exposed to rising seas levels in Marshall Islands.


Despite local protests, residents in Kimba overwhelmingly support hosting a low-level waste repository. Hawker community ballot opens in November. Western Australian politicians claim process is a ‘sham’, because they want chance to host the facility.


Candidates in the Canadian general election differed in their support for NWMO’s planned deep geological repository, and whether process was ‘fair’. Borehole investigations expanded in NWMO’s search for a potential site. Ontario Power Generation expect first nations to vote before end of 2019 on whether they support the planned low-level repository in Huron.


Concern that if richer countries can’t manage radioactive waste, how can Africa.


2-Minute Summary from September 2019 ….


In addition to ongoing international media coverage of Finland’s repository and the French site at Bure:

  • European Union funds a new collaborative research programme on radioactive waste management.
  • Continued friction between Croatia and Bosnia over a planned low-level radioactive waste facility to be built near the border.
  • Russian court finds that there are insufficient anti-terrorist defences at a Murmansk radioactive waste facility. But Russia removes the last Soviet-era reactor that had been dumped in the Barents Sea.
  • Bulgarian court allows construction of a low-level radioactive waste facility, but Opposition leader continues to worry about the long-term costs of nuclear and building a deep geological repository.
  • France concludes its national public debate on radioactive waste management and geological disposal.
  • UK: a local Cumbrian council previously supportive of a GDF, but newly-elected councillors are less convinced.


Decommissioning and geological disposal have both jumped up the agenda in Japan. The need for new interim storage facilities at Fukushima has been recognised and agreed by the local prefecture. But generally, local communities worried that such “interim” stores will become permanent. Media urging Government to take geological disposal off the policy “back burner”, as regulators suggest nuclear sector should learn from US and Europe’s decommissioning and radioactive waste management experience.

The long-term challenges of radioactive waste management and disposal are cited in several Asian countries as key shaper of public anti-nuclear sentiment, eg in Indonesia, Pakistan, Philippines and Bangladesh — in Taiwan, its an issue in the Presidential election debate.

There are also growing calls in Asian countries (eg Philippines, Sri Lanka, Malaysia) to stop shipments of hazardous waste from richer countries, and to impose similar regulation on this waste as is applied to radioactive waste.

United States

In the CNN ‘Climate Change’ debate between Democrat Presidential candidates, the issue of radioactive waste was a key concern amongst the anti-nuclear candidates. All favour a ‘consent-based’ approach, but each candidate means different things.

Unsurprisingly, continued congressional inertia is expected on Yucca Mountain and geological disposal until the 2020 elections. Nevada is a key ‘swing’ state, and is using that position to stymie any congressional action. Nobody’s happy with the status quo — least of all Californians, as San Onofre continues to generate lots of media coverage.

Even proposed temporary high-level radioactive waste stores, to remove waste from closed nuclear power plants pending a final repository, are now facing uphill struggles. The oil, gas & fracking industries fear such facilities could remove large areas of land available for their exploitation.

One of the company’s proposing such a temporary facility, Holtec International, has other problems, as its home state New Jersey freezes a tax cut pending investigations that Holtec has misled regulators. Holtec has plans to acquire closed nuclear power plants, to speed decommissioning and removal of radwaste, but there are continued protests about the sale of Oyster Creek and Pilgrim power plants to Holtec.

While no money for Yucca is expected before 2020 elections, the Senate has approved a $400m budget for WIPP — which anticipates a 50% increase in shipments by 2023.

Rest of the World

Continued international concerns about a leaking US interim surface store in the Marshall Islands, with radioactivity levels “higher than Chernobyl”.

Local community ballot in Australia on hosting a low-level radioactive waste facility is to proceed, but local indigenous peoples and environmentalists have not given up on their attempts to halt the process.

The Government Minister responsible says the difficulties in finding a radioactive waste facility means Australia should tackle that problem before committing further to nuclear.

Protests in Canada against proposed low-level waste repository by the Ottawa River.

On 60th anniversary of the Antarctic Treaty, signatory nations re-commit to not disposing of radioactive waste on the continent.


2-Minute Summary from July 2019 ….


Most progress continues to be made in Europe. On top of the on-going formal public debates and consultations in France and Germany:

  • Finland announces a €500m investment in its under-construction repository
  • Holland starts a process of public engagement to develop a socially-acceptable and fair process for deciding how to dispose of its radioactive waste
  • UK publishes a National Policy Statement for geological disposal infrastructure, but the general political environment is muting progress in the site selection process launched at the start of the year
  • Switzerland continues investigatory borehole drilling
  • Czech Republic raises public awareness of geological disposal with multiple articles in the media looking at the Finnish example.

IAEA says Norway could do more to strengthen its radioactive waste management procedures, while Italy is censured by European Court of Justice for not complying with requirement to develop a radioactive waste management plan.

United States

Political stalemate reigns supreme in the US, as different tiers of government actively thwart one another, leaving those who live closest to and most affected by radioactive waste frustrated at the inaction.

Everyone agrees a permanent repository is required, but there’s no apparent majority for any of the options. The US Senate (which previously blocked Yucca funding) has now proposed funding in their draft 2020 budget. The US House of Representatives (which previously and overwhelmingly backed Yucca funding) has proposed a 2020 budget without any funding for Yucca. Nevada’s position as a ‘swing state’ now means Democrats reluctant to rock the boat there.

Several, all bipartisan, bills have been submitted in both Houses of Congress which side-step but don’t address Yucca. The bills variably are focused on either compensating communities where radioactive waste is being stored indefinitely in interim surface facilities, allowing long-term temporary storage facilities for waste designated for disposal, or creating a more consent-based site search process.

Political commentators observe this may become an electoral problem for the Democrats. Many elected representatives have nuclear facilities in their own constituencies, and local voters want it removed — so local voters may not be forgiving if their representative defies their wishes while playing a DC ‘game of stalemate’.

But as Washington fiddles, the real world moves on. A late-breaking scandal as the Department of Energy admits low-level radioactive waste may have been shipped to Nevada in error, for many years. Calls for Rick Perry’s resignation, and a political gift to Nevada’s politicians. The political fall-out may take several weeks to settle.

In New Mexico, newly-elected State officials, including the Governor and State Land Commissioner, now oppose Holtec International’s proposed temporary radioactive waste facility. The communities hosting the planned facility continue to vote in favour, but now feel they are being stymied by State-level actors.

A similar State versus Local confrontation in Washington state, where there is strong local support for the proposed federal reclassification of radioactive wastes, but opposition from the Governor. The proposed reclassification of wastes, which brings the US in line with international standards, would allow more low-level waste to be disposed of more quickly and more cheaply than sending for geological disposal. The proposal is overwhelmingly supported by local government bodies, communities and local media (ie those most affected and informed), but opposed by more remote agencies (ie those least affected on a daily basis).


Protests in India against a planned interim surface storage facility at the new nuclear power plant — with campaigners claiming geological disposal is safer than surface storage.

Japan secures support at G20 Summit for greater international co-operation on geological disposal. A conference is expected, but still no news on the when, where and what will be on the agenda.

President of the Marshall Islands conducts a series of interviews with international media outlets to express her concern after the UN Secretary General’s warning about a ‘leaking’ Cold war-era surface storage facility.

Middle East

Concerns over whether Israel is properly managing its radioactive waste, following a Report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. While Provinces in Iraq have refused to host new radioactive waste storage facilities.


Late-breaking news, as a federal court rules against legal bid by an aboriginal group to block a local ballot on whether Kimba community should host a low-level waste repository.


Borehole-drilling programme being expanded as geological investigations commence in the communities still in consideration to host a deep geological repository.

The issue of radioactive waste is a feature of a wider public debate about Canada’s potential use of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). Chiefs of the Anishinabek Nation vote against SMRs, concerned that Canada could become the world’s dumping ground for radioactive waste.


2-Minute Summary from May 2019 ….

A quick 2-minute read, summarising major announcements and key progress during May from geological disposal programmes around the world – details on our international media coverage page:


France, Germany and the UK are all conducting some form of public dialogue programme to engage with the wider public. There has been significant media coverage of the formal French national debate, but we’ve seen little media or English-language coverage from Germany (which suggests a lower-level public profile). The UK’s siting process has been slowed by the wider political instability and fall-out from Brexit, local government elections and the European elections – unsurprisingly, local politicians not rushing to put a “nuclear waste dump” on the public agenda when they’re fighting for their most basic political survival.

Slovakia and Czech Republic speak publicly about their attempts and preference to have a shared geological repository. Ukraine receives EU, US and NATO funding & support to help speed disposal and safe management of Soviet-era radioactive waste in the troubled region.

A significant milestone achieved in the development of geological disposal repositories, as Finland ‘plugs’ (ie seals off) an underground test/demonstration tunnel. While in Sweden, the latest poll shows 80% of local residents support the planned repository in Osthammar.

Switzerland starts its borehole drilling investigations. Austria seeks to stop any nuclear facilities being built close to its borders in neighbouring countries.

United States

Yucca Mountain still a political football, with no clear outcome in sight. Republican majority in Senate now want to progress funding for Yucca, having previously blocked funding to help protect a Republican Senator facing re-election in Nevada. The Democrats won that election, and now are blocking funding because Nevada has become a key swing-state in the Democratic Presidential candidate race and subsequent 2020 elections.

In the US House of Representatives, which in recent years has been overwhelmingly in favour of funding Yucca, the Democratic Party leadership are showing no enthusiasm for opening the Yucca Mountain can of worms, and have not proposed any funding. However, pressure growing to sort out the radioactive waste destined for disposal which remains at multiple surface locations across the country.

Government watchdog, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) produces several reports, effectively saying it is becoming more expensive to American taxpayers to do nothing than build a repository, and that a clear disposal strategy urgently required.

The local community hosting Yucca Mountain have written to Congress, urging they proceed with funding. Current best bet, is that US Congress may stop short of funding Yucca but will find a compromise around permitting the type of interim consolidated storage facilities being proposed in New Mexico and West Texas, with some form of review around a ‘consent-based’ approach.


Japan attempting to make geological disposal an issue of global debate, like climate change, by trying to place the matter on the agenda of the forthcoming G20 debate.

The future of nuclear power, and a new referendum on radioactive waste disposal, still a matter of contention and demonstration in Taiwan. TaiPower’s previous “deceit” over finding a site to store radioactive waste has undermined public trust in the organisation, allegedly making it easier for the company to become a political football between competing political parties.

Substantial and widespread global media interest in a South Pacific interim surface storage facility which is allegedly leaking radiation into the local environment.


The National Waste Management Organisation (NWMO) will shortly be starting initial investigative borehole drilling in southern Ontario, and have embarked on an information campaign to explain this next stage in the search for a suitable site for their deep geological repository for higher-activity waste.

The Saugeen Ojibway Nation are expected to hold a vote before the end of 2019 on whether they support Ontario Power Generation (OPG) plans for a repository for low-level radioactive waste.


The surprise re-election of the federal government, suggests that the Australians will press ahead with their plans for a low-level waste repository in South Australia. However, the issue is still before the courts, as some aboriginal groups complain they have not been properly consulted. An Andyamathanha woman has been appointed as the local Community Liaison Officer for the planned repository.


Rwanda trains staff in radioactive waste management and signs a nuclear co-operation agreement with Morocco. However, there continues to be a debate in Africa over waste from electronic equipment, including solar panels. There are few effective controls over exporting this waste from wealthier nations (unlike radioactive waste), and so Africa is becoming the dumping ground for products with highly-toxic wastes that do not decay and are not properly disposed of.

Nuclear Waste Report 2019 highlights complexity

i Nov 17th No Comments by

Co-ordinated by a Green Party ex-MEP, this newly-published report is a thoughtful contribution from an anti-nuclear perspective.

A majority of the authors of The World Nuclear Waste Report 2019: Focus Europe support geological disposal, but they understandably demand a much more open public debate, and continued scientific review.

What makes the Report interesting within the UK national context is that anti-nuclear campaigners here have previously linked the disposal of radwaste with the nuclear new build debate. But this detailed international report separates out the issues related to the management and disposal of radioactive waste, and identifies the significant ethical, environmental and economic matters that need to be addressed in their own right.

GDFWatch argues that whether we should build new nuclear power plants is a perfectly legitimate public debate, but that that debate should not distract us from addressing the issues of how we manage the waste we already have, and would continue to have, regardless of whether the UK unilaterally disarms its nuclear arsenal and/or shuts down its nuclear energy sector.

The World Nuclear Waste Report provides substantial international data on issues which GDFWatch has been raising in the UK, eg:

  • it will be many decades before repositories are operational, but there are significant environmental and cost issues with maintaining surface interim stores over the long term (with the current furore over the Runit facility in the Marshall Islands an exemplar of how easy it is for a society to ‘forget’ about an “interim” surface store built before climate change was a pressing global threat)
  • the need for a changed, collaborative, careful approach to assessing potential sites, which engages meaningfully with local communities and the wider public

In every country, the Report says, “addressing the task of safely managing and disposing of our radioactive waste demands from society, politicians, citizens, science and industry to be more open and patient, money, and willing to admit mistakes and failures and to rethink approaches and strategies.” In the UK, the new Working With Communities site search and selection process opens the door to tackling this in such a constructive way.

The UK’s new consent-based siting process may eventually fail, but there are commitments to changing the way in which government and nuclear agencies interact with communities, to providing adequate engagement funding to support communities’ involvement, and to a more structured approach to intergenerational planning. GDFWatch strongly believes there is not only the opportunity to resolve our radwaste problem, but also support local democratic and social infrastructure reforms that empower local people’s participation and role in decision-making.

The World Nuclear Waste Report is critical of the lack of standardised comparative international data — from how waste volumes are calculated, to how waste is classified. Also, that no country has fully-costed the decommissioning of its facilities, or the management and eventual disposal of its radioactive waste. The Report also claims there is too little research into the human health impacts of radiation.

However, the Report’s view that the radioactive waste management and disposal process “must always be focused on solutions” is to be welcomed. As the author notes: We can phase out nuclear power, but we cannot phase out the nuclear waste and its eternal risks.

What we can all agree upon, is the Report’s observation that “deep geological disposal is one of the most ambitious and most difficult tasks on earth”. Delightfully understated!

*UPDATE* An alarm call: surface storage versus geological disposal of radioactive waste

i Nov 17th 1 Comment by

A follow-up in depth analysis by the Los Angeles Times has generated subsequent media coverage across the world.

While disavowing any responsibility or accountability for the radioactive waste leftover from US nuclear bomb tests in the Pacific, the Trump Administration did get angry at anti-US graffiti painted on the “interim” storage facility.

The Marshall Islands are considering legal action, as rising sea levels caused by climate change (unpredicted when the facility was built half a century ago) threaten a significant radioactive leak on and around Runit atoll.

In a separate but parallel story, French Polynesia is also considering legal action against France for its failure to properly manage radioactive waste left over from French nuclear bomb tests in the 1960 and 70s.

See original news below, as UN Sec General raises first alarm.


The United Nations Secretary General’s recent warning about a South Pacific interim radioactive waste storage facility leaking radiation is perhaps the loudest alarm call yet against keeping such wastes on the surface of the planet, when we could be more safely disposing of the waste deep underground.

Many environmentalists are opposed to geological disposal because we cannot be sure that deep geological disposal will isolate and contain radioactive waste for millennia. They argue that we should keep the waste in monitored surface facilities until a better alternative solution is found.

While it is true that scientists cannot offer a 100% guarantee for the next million years when burying radioactive waste deep underground, the South Pacific facility highlighted by the UN Secretary General is evidence that there is practically a 100% certainty of a dangerous radiation leak somewhere on the planet during that time if we keep the waste on the surface for a prolonged period.

It is a question of risk management. Deep geological disposal reduces risk to minimal proportions, and scientists can provide safety assessments with confidence for at least the first few centuries. Such high levels of surety are possible because the underground environment has not changed in billions or millions of years and will not be affected by future surface climate change or human activity.

However, the same levels of surety are not possible when it comes to the stability of the surface environment and human society over the coming centuries — indeed, as evidenced by the radiation leak from this facility, climate and human society changes have already adversely affected the surface environment, in just 60 years!

If something is going to go wrong (and experience suggests we should be cautious and prepare accordingly) we have a simple choice: do we want a dangerous radiation leak to happen on the surface where we all live, or in a contained space isolated deep beneath the surface far away from humans and the surface environment?

We have already seen this risk choice in action. In 2014 a package leaked radioactivity in the US’ deep geological repository. The repository needed to be shut for four years, but all the harmful radiation was kept isolated 600m below the surface and did not pose a risk to people living at the surface. After investigation, it was discovered that the package had only recently been placed underground. The package had been a hidden ticking time bomb, and fortunately for everyone it went off deep underground and out of harm’s way. Had it ruptured while on the surface, the human and environmental consequences could have been catastrophic.

Then in 2018, radioactive waste which had been stored on the surface for 60 years at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) had to be moved into new packages, as the original packaging was decaying and becoming unsafe. During this repackaging process the old canister ruptured, releasing radioactivity. Fortunately, again, there was no risk to local people. If the US had a permanent geological repository, the waste could have been moved underground and no further repackaging may have been required. However, the longer we retain surface storage, the more often we will have to remove radioactive waste from ageing and decaying canisters and place it in new, safer packages. Every time we open an old package we risk opening pandora’s box — and there are hundreds of thousands of such packages around the world. Can we be 100% certain that for each of the millions of times that this will need to be done all over the world over the next few centuries that this won’t result in at least one mistake or accident?

In the first incident we were protected because the incident happened underground (though could have happened on the surface). In the second, safety standards protected us this time, but we cannot give a 100% public safety guarantee for the millions of times in the future when we will have to repackage waste in order to keep it on the surface.

The nuclear sector will, rightly, point out the safety standards and procedures that they now have in place internationally to make interim surface storage safe. The South Pacific facility was built in the 1960s, when radioactive waste technology and science was in its infancy — and when our forefathers did not give the attention to effective radioactive waste management and disposal that we now do. But rising sea levels and a largely forgotten facility in a distant unpopulated atoll show what can happen even over a relatively short period of time as climate changes and human society errs.

There is no present and immediate danger from interim surface stores. They are, to all intents and purposes, safe. But they are not a long-term solution when faced with the inevitable ice ages that are coming, and the fragility of human society. With Brexit, the UK has no idea what the next 6 months will hold, let alone the next 6, 60 or 600 years. Rocks at depth evidentially provide a more stable and reliable protective environment over the long-term than mercurial human society.

For all the concerns that some environmentalists have about geological disposal, compared to keeping radioactive waste on the surface indefinitely, burying it as far away from the surface as possible seems a much less risky proposition in every scenario. More than that, it also means that this generation takes appropriate responsibility for its actions/mess rather than leaving future generations to pick up the tab for our poor behaviours.

Collaborate, don’t seek agreement for YOUR decision

i Nov 17th 2 Comments by

An important, and a novel idea for the nuclear sector, on community engagement can be found deep within a weighty tome on risk-assessed decision-making produced by the US independent watchdog, the Government Accountability Office (GAO). It speaks directly to what is required for the UK GDF siting process.

The GAO performs a similar function as the UK’s National Audit Office (NAO). It’s recently published Environmental Liabilities report is critical of the US’ Department of Energy (DoE) for still failing to introduce risk-informed decision-making into its environmental cleanup plans. With a US$600 billion liability, which is ever-rising, the GAO believes the DoE is not doing enough to account for human health and environmental risks within a finite budget.

More importantly from our perspective, is a fascinating section on community engagement and involvement in the decision-making process. This is not just a US issue, but is relevant to every nuclear agency across the world. And is particularly relevant in the UK, in relation to the formation of Community Partnerships and how decisions are taken in evaluating and determining a potential GDF site.

The GAO make clear that there will always be differing opinions within local communities, and between different stakeholder groups. Currently, nuclear agencies make a decision and then try to get support for that decision. This is fraught with difficulties, polarises and generally antagonises everyone, and can lead to lengthy (and costly) legal and appeals processes.

The GAO’s ‘radical’ idea is to engage communities and stakeholders in co-designing a decision-making framework. This recognises that not everyone is going to like the final decision, but if the process for arriving at that decision has been discussed and agreed in advance by all the key parties, there will be more legitimacy in the outcome. The GAO also notes that decisions often require a high-degree of specialised knowledge, and can’t easily be left to those with limited technical understanding. And that is the reason why a decision-making framework that is widely accepted across the stakeholder spectrum is required.

Key points the GAO makes include:

  • stakeholder involvement is critical to sound decision-making, though the specific type and extent of that involvement should vary depending on the decision being made
  • the most appropriate role for stakeholder groups representing members of the public, such as nonprofit organizations and community groups, is likely to be one of helping to inform the decision, rather than of ultimately making it. For example, such stakeholders may help define the problem, define objectives, or identify options
  • the goals of engaging stakeholder groups representing members of the public … should be to incorporate their viewpoints and to seek their acceptance of the decision-making process as transparent and legitimate
  • a more realistic and helpful approach is to seek these stakeholders’ input and buy-in to the process by providing meaningful opportunities for engagement early in the process, communicating throughout the process, and providing transparent, understandable information about the science and rationale behind the final decision
  • involving stakeholders in this step is important because they may provide important information and insights that could affect how a problem is characterized
  • because stakeholders may have differing views about the nature and extent of a problem and the scope of the decision that should be made to address it, their input during this step can help build confidence that the right problem is being addressed.

With complex issues, generating conflicting opinions and emotions, it is not always possible to seek consensus for every decision. We can only resolve this problem through creating a decision-making process which commands widespread legitimacy.

In the UK GDF siting process context, this suggests that RWM should not develop a community-based decision-making framework on their own, and then try to get everyone to agree to it. They should start discussions with the community sector on jointly developing a decision-making framework that commands a high degree of ‘legitimacy’, so that decisions which are eventually made will stand public and critical scrutiny.

This is how democracy works. We set up rules within which we delegate decision-making. In the UK there is a widespread view that our democratic processes at every level are failing us and need renewal. As GDFWatch has previously argued, the GDF consent-based site selection process could not only deliver a repository, but also help reform our political and social decision-making processes. The GAO model offers RWM and the UK a credible way forward to achieving this.

RWM’s future direction? Stakeholders’ perspectives.

i Sep 22nd No Comments by

Stakeholder speculation about the future direction of RWM was inevitable after the announcement of current MD Bruce McKirdy’s retirement.

What’s striking, as you listen to influencers across the stakeholder spectrum, is the degree of unanimity of opinion outside RWM on how the organisation might progress. Regardless of whether you speak to someone in the nuclear industry, local government, public agencies, trades unions or academia, there are common perspectives on the situation.

RWM has been undergoing an internal transformation, as well as investing in new skills and resources. Changes are not always visible, but it is an increasingly different organisation to when it was founded 5 years ago. Bruce McKirdy’s departure focuses attention on the skillset and experience his successor will need, in the next phase of development, to effectively marshall those changes and best deploy the new skills and resources in order to move the siting process forward.

Across the stakeholder map there appears to be a common view that prior nuclear experience is not necessary. The emphasis of opinion on the required skillset is towards finding someone experienced in “people” and “politics”. Whether that’s someone with previous public agency, infrastructure, local government or other leadership experience seems less important to stakeholders than having a record of understanding how to work with local government and communities, of building relationships, and of managing Whitehall and Westminster.

As the GDF project progresses to actual site investigations and beyond, everyone recognises that different resource priorities, skills and leadership will be required at different points of the journey. But at this stage in the GDF programme’s lifecycle it appears commonly accepted that it is primarily a social and political initiative, to build trust and open a discussion.

Whoever is appointed will clearly also need to demonstrate the capability to manage complex technical and regulatory issues, maintain RWM’s excellent technical reputation, ensure appropriate governance, account for the expenditure of taxpayers funds, and successfully argue the case for further public investment. If there is a stakeholder worry, it is that in a risk-averse nuclear sector culture, the chosen candidate will be a “safe pair of hands” administratively, but lack the dynamism to drive the siting process forward in conjunction with communities and local government.

There is no underestimation amongst stakeholders of the difficulty of this recruitment challenge, to find someone to make progress with one of the most challenging public policy projects imaginable. However, there is little that is new in these stakeholder perceptions of how RWM should evolve.

In the past five years, RWM has conducted two major, in-depth surveys of stakeholder opinion. The results of these surveys have yet to be published, but GDFWatch understands that both surveys reveal a universal high regard for RWM’s technical competence, acknowledgment that RWM was making changes in the right direction, but a residual concern that the organisation was not backing up its words with sufficient deeds in terms of being an effective community engager.

We may know by Christmas who is to lead RWM into the next stage of its development. Whoever that is will have one of the most challenging jobs in Britain. Their success will be defined not just by their organisational & management skills but on their ability to effect real change in the outside world — a world in which they need to secure other people’s ‘consent’.

Civil Society: Expert Partners

i Jul 14th No Comments by

RWM are experts in packaging nuclear waste, but have no experience in creating local democratic institutions. As RWM explore how to engage constructively with communities, there is a wealth of expertise, and a huge amount already going on, in the civil society sector.

In a consent-based local democratic decision-making process which requires the active participation of the community, there seems to be no reason for RWM not to engage in a more collaborative way with the civil society sector. The sector’s expertise and activities can help flesh out the barebone principles of the ‘Working With Communities’ policy.

What that collaboration looks like remains to be discussed, but the kinds of areas where civil society organisations can play an important role can be easily seen in a high-level overview of announcements and activities from just the past 4-6 weeks. The following list is far from comprehensive. It is simply provided to stimulate ideas, raise mutual awareness, and encourage further discussion.

  • The organisation formerly known as the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) have launched a new initiative called ‘Impact Partnerships’. NESTA wants to go beyond traditional methods of partnership working, to create processes which help find solutions to problems, rather than partnerships simply becoming ‘talking shops’. Impact Partnerships should clearly set out the steps for partnerships to take decisions and make their actions sustainable – this approach is central to the proposed work and ‘culture’ of the proposed GDF Community Partnerships.
  • Centre for Local Economic Strategies (CLES) recently held a Community Wealth Building Summit and launched a Community Wealth Building Centre of Excellence. Given the emphasis in the GDF siting policy on supporting communities to develop and deliver a long-term vision for their community, the network which CLES drives could be an invaluable resource for RWM, while the funding behind the GDF siting process may help CLES deliver its ambitions.
  • For example, the Community Wealth Fund Alliance has just published a Report looking at how place-based funding streams can be designed to empower the communities deemed most ‘left behind’ by the economic system. The report offers a set of principles for designing really impactful and long-lasting funding programmes, which have community control at their heart — completely relevant to how a GDF community might approach sustainable community investment from the funds the siting process will provide.
  • Power To Change & IPPR North argue that ‘Stronger Towns Fund’, despite its imperfections and limitations creates an opportunity to build on lessons learned from previous projects, and to trial and evaluate new models for creating local wealth and well-being. They set out 5 principles of success, all of which are core to GDF policy and will underpin a successful GDF Community Partnership — Locally-led and locally owned, Flexible & open-ended, Integrated into wider economic strategies, Open to experimentation & knowledge sharing, Concerned with long-term legacy from the outset.
  • Participedia offer some very thoughtful academic analysis of how to improve two-way dialogue and support impactful deliberative community discussion and participation. Their insights play to the core of how a GDF Community Partnership might operate.
  • Centre for Public Impact believe that for communities to thrive, they need to be given the tools and resources to find solutions that work for them and for the places where they live. This however, requires changes in public attitudes and behaviours, and a project in Gloucester is presented as a case study in such change.

This is but a snapshot. GDFWatch has previously profiled a wide range of organisations and their work, and how the GDF siting process would not only benefit from these organisation’s input, but that the siting process might also actually help deliver these organisation’s wider ambitions, eg:

International Media coverage of geological disposal

i Jun 30th No Comments by

Provided as an information, inspiration, and research resource for journalists and the wider public, our regularly updated archive of stories from around the world reflects how the media in different countries are reporting on geological disposal and long-term management of radioactive waste.

The archive is, sadly, not yet searchable.  However, it covers the planet, with thousands of reports from almost 100 countries, including: Abu Dhabi, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Fiji, Finland, France, French Polynesia, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Holland, Honduras, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Ireland, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Korea, Kurdistan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Puerto Rico, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, UAE, UK, USA, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Wales and Zambia.

Currently we can only source English-language stories, but if anyone discovers a news story, especially if it’s not in English, please send to us at

This resource will be updated regularly, and we’ll alert everyone when new content is available.  There are now thousands of articles to review, from local and online media through to internationally-regarded titles such as Time Magazine, Forbes, Nature, NY Times, The Economist, Washington Post, etc.

You can visit the current articles page here.

For articles from January – September 2019, please click on this link to our Jan – Oct 2019 Media Archive.

For articles from 2018, please click on this link to our 2018 Media Archive.

For articles from 2017, please click on this link to our 2017 Media Archive.

TO CONSULT OR TO COLLABORATE: that is the community question  

i Jun 1st 3 Comments by

The sociopolitical challenges RWM faces were starkly revealed by the community sector’s response to a recent major Government funding announcement.  Their reaction suggests that the package of GDF-related investment and other funding, while being ‘necessary’, is not necessarily ‘sufficient’ to secure a community’s consent to start initial discussions or formally enter the siting process.

At the forefront of the sectors’ concerns is ‘collaboration’, and more active involvement in shaping policy and how it is implemented.  This aspiration, particularly in the context of a ‘consent-based’ siting process, is likely to become a key area of discussion as RWM seeks to build awareness, trust and confidence with communities.

The evidence for this analysis can be found in the community/civil society sector reaction to the Government’s recent £1.6 billion ‘Stronger Towns Fund’ announcement.  Instead of welcoming the extra cash, across the board there was frustration and concern that once again there had been no consultation with those affected, that this was another top-down solution, and was throwing good money at bad means of delivering real benefits to communities.  Those expressing this opinion included:

Their reaction suggests that RWM cannot simply throw money at communities – instead communities and their representatives are more likely to seek much greater collaboration and involvement in creating and implementing the GDF siting process.

And acquiescing to these demands (which it will be difficult to resist in a consent-based process) might actually lead to more robust, sustainable and trusted community partnership frameworks.

There is a wealth of experience in the sector in managing citizen and community participation in decision-making and long-term planning, and much work has already been done by the sector in reforming the relationship between communities and local government.  This experience and expertise is core to the fundamentals of the community partnerships envisioned by the Working With Communities policy.

Communities may have no expertise in radioactive waste management, but RWM has zero experience of building local democratic institutions.  This sounds like an environment ripe for co-operation and collaboration.

GDFWatch has flagged this issue on previous occasions.  Whether that be the similarities between the GDF siting policy and Localism Commission recommendations, or the range of research and publications by the civil society sector around empowering communities and citizens.  There is also a wider public political debate about the state of our democracy and making decision-making more relevant to ordinary people.

Initial political, public and media reaction to RWM’s current Site Evaluation consultation underlines the difficulties faced in building trust with communities.  Aside from expected NIMBYism, there is also appears to be a widespread , underlying lack of belief that the GDF siting process is actually “community-centric”.

The whole ‘consent-based’ approach is novel and new to the United Kingdom.  But people have little trust in such government pledges.  A more collaborative approach to determining how a community partnership might operate, decisions are made, and the right of withdrawal is protected, is likely to be critical to building community trust and confidence in the siting process.  Radioactive waste is a difficult enough ‘sell’ but is complicated by an honestly-proposed but cynically-regarded community-based decision-making process.

Nobody would necessarily choose to host a GDF, but like every other country we need to find somewhere to safely and responsibly dispose of our radioactive waste.  Thus, the process by which we go about finding a willing community and suitable geological site becomes critical.  The siting process needs to be transparently fair, balancing the rights and needs of the community and the developer.  Involving the civil society sector and drawing on their experience and expertise in developing the consent-based community partnership approach, is likely to be a key and productive step towards building community trust in the GDF siting process.

GDF as Social Infrastructure & Local Democracy project

i May 13th No Comments by

A new opinion poll revealing the depth of public despair at how our current democracy operates is published on the same day as GDFWatch argues in a leading community sector magazine that the GDF siting process could also be a major social infrastructure change programme to help address the local democracy deficit.

The opinion poll was published in The Guardian, while the GDFWatch article (reprinted below) was published in New Start magazine.

Communities in Control: a local democracy laboratory

A Government policy announced without fanfare just before Christmas potentially has implications for everyone working to enhance local democracy and empower local decision-making, writes Roy Payne, executive director of GDFWatch.

The new policy, called Working With Communities, provides a framework — and more critically, the funding – to help communities exert more influence over, and be more involved in, long-term social, environmental and economic planning in their area.

Although created to support delivery of a major nationally-significant energy infrastructure programme, the new policy is effectively a huge social infrastructure change project.

It establishes a new and unique Community Partnership framework designed to proactively and pragmatic solutions to some fundamental issues of community representation and engagement. For example, how do we best:

  • plan for, and over, the long-term without the distractions of the electoral cycle and the short-term decision-making it drives?
  • give local people influence over the delivery of the UK’s national contribution to solving a global environmental issue?
  • create an effective working partnership, and rebalance power, between communities and their local government?
  • contact and involve those hard-to-reach groups within a community whose voice is not always heard?

The Government has also made significant commitments to fund a wide range of activities, including:

  • a central secretariat to professionally support the new Community Partnerships
  • the acquisition of independent expert skills and knowledge to advise and support the community, to more effectively challenge government assumptions
  • socioeconomic analysis, to create a ‘vision’ document that sets out the community’s long-term social, environmental and economic ambitions
  • outreach and engagement activity, to ensure even hard-to-reach groups are involved in deliberation and decision-making processes

The policy framework and funding might be in place, but the project currently lacks any flesh for these barebone principles. That’s where the localism, local wealth creation, local democracy and community development sectors might now have a role to play.

Cynics will observe this all seems too good to be true. To be sure, there are inevitable caveats. But what makes this policy different from anything that has gone before, and why it might pique the sector’s interest, is that the Government requires a community’s ‘consent’ throughout this process.

Let that sink in for a moment.  The Government requires your consent.  You can walk away, without obligation, at any time. That changes the whole negotiating and power-balance dynamic. It provides the community sector with new and unique leverage to secure an equitable and meaningful partnership with central and local governments.

So, what are the caveats and constraints? First of all, over the 10-30 year lifecycle of the project, it is likely that no more than 10-12 areas will be involved. Any area in the country could be involved, but only a handful are likely to be actually involved. This offers the opportunity to create ‘mega pilot projects’ in which new ideas and techniques around community participation and empowerment can be trialled and evaluated. The lessons learned applied to other areas of public policy. The evidence built to show central government that local people can be trusted with decision-making responsibilities.

But the biggest hurdle is the subject matter. Nuclear waste. The international scientific consensus, on a par with that behind climate change, is that every country needs to build a specialised facility deep underground. The international political consensus is that any site must have the approval of the local community. These are huge projects. The UK’s facility is likely to cost around £20 billion, with an operating life in excess of 150 years. Wherever it is sited it will have profound long-term implications for the surrounding communities and economy.

Finland, France, Sweden, Switzerland and Canada are all well ahead of us in securing community consent to build such a facility. The UK has learned from their experiences. The requirement to gain a community’s consent is the driving force behind the Working With Communities policy. It is a radical and new approach in the UK to how communities can shape and determine infrastructure projects. But the principles of ‘consent’, and experience learned from direct community involvement, could be applied across a wide range of public policy challenges.

We live in the most centralised ‘democracy’ in Europe. Despite paying lip-service to devolved decision-making, Westminster does not yield power easily. The Government have been required to introduce the ‘community consent’ principle because it is international best practice. The consent principle offers a foot in the door to wider local democracy reform, if we can show Government hard evidence that people can actually be trusted to evaluate complex issues and make pragmatic decisions.

Rebalancing power and bringing decision-making closer to those affected is one of the key challenges we face as we look to a society beyond Brexit. Nuclear waste may not be the issue you would choose to engage with. But if we are to develop new and more democratic ways to govern our affairs in the 21st Century, perhaps resolving one of our ‘dirtiest’ intergenerational problems is the best place to start.

The community that wants a Geological Disposal Facility

i May 10th No Comments by

A community’s frustration at not being allowed to even consider hosting a geological repository (a GDF) is amply demonstrated in this interview on Nevada Public Radio.

Dan Schinhofen is vice chairman of the Nye County Commission.  It is his community which would host the US’ geological disposal facility at the proposed Yucca Mountain site.  He and his fellow residents are angry that their community’s concerns, aspirations and interests are being ignored by a distant urban-based political and commercial elite.

During the interview he makes the following key points:

  • Doing further research on the site does not mean anything will actually be built: “let’s first have the facts.  My grandchildren live here — if it’s not safe, we won’t want it.”
  • Las Vegas is worried about the impact on tourism if Yucca goes ahead, yet waste is already sitting on the surface near the city — waste which would be removed deep underground if Yucca was built
  • The jobs and revenues created would deliver and sustain public services that are currently not available to the people of Nye County and those living in adjoining rural communities
  • Nevada has spent millions of dollars on lawyers to block further investigation of the Yucca site, but refuses to provide money for public services in Nye County
  • Local people firmly believe the facility will bring jobs and better public services, which will enhance the quality of life in the community — those who are skeptical about the potential socioeconomic benefits for Nye County don’t live in Nye County
  • Whether it’s dealing with the radioactive waste problem, or improving community services in Nye County, “just sticking your fingers in your ears and saying ‘no’ is not an answer.”

The written article accompanying the audio interview can be read here.