In the next few weeks GDFWatch will be unveiling a range of consultancy and other services. The services we will offer are built on the feedback we got from you in July’s stakeholder survey.
Supporting communities and local authorities: consultancy services
The GDF siting process is novel and untested. The GDFWatch team has a wealth of experience uniquely gained in the development and interpretation of that siting process.
We can help communities and local authorities get to grips with this new system, so that you are actively driving discussions with RWM, equipped to ensure your interests are not just being protected but are being advanced.
We provide access to a wide range of technical/scientific, socioeconomic, environmental, land-use planning, public consultation, community engagement, stakeholder management, and communications expertise. These skills and knowledge will not only help you set up the process in a way which works best for your community, but also offer you independent expert counsel as the process progresses.
News & Information services
Geological disposal is a global issue requiring local solutions. Access to the latest information will be vital in delivering a balanced and informed debate. GDFWatch’s current plans include:
Trust
A key and recurring theme from the stakeholder survey was the need for ‘trust’. We absolutely understand this. It’s not just enough to be ‘independent’ – we must be seen to be independent.
There will be times when funding comes from nuclear sector or other vested interests. Each case will be assessed on its own merits, and a full declaration publicly made. People can then make their own judgement on the veracity of the information or independence of any service being provided.
The income generated from the services we provide will help sustain the free independent services that will be an important resource for communities and individuals at all stages in siting process discussions.
If you would like to find out more, please contact roy.payne@gdfwatch.org.uk or call 07900 243007.
Experts in local democracy, community development, engagement and communications – do you want to help shape how communities can actively participate in decision-making for a major infrastructure project?
Recruitment is underway for up to 8 new members for the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), the Government’s expert advisory panel. This is the latest important step in CoRWM’s evolution from a purely scientific and technical group, to one which can also effectively monitor and advise on how RWM implements the Government’s Working With Communities policy.
GDFWatch has previously reported on the potential for developing a model local democratic framework of how communities can have more control over decisions affecting where they live and contribute to long-term socioeconomic planning and economic growth in their area.
The CoRWM recruitment advert specifically states the following as amongst the key areas of expertise being sought:
The recent tailored review of CoRWM, following on from last summer’s appointment of prominent social scientist Sir Nigel Thrift as CoRWM’s new Chair, underlines the Government’s awareness of the need to shift priority as the GDF siting process relaunches. There is a recognition that the issues related to finding a site based on a community’s consent are increasingly social rather than technical – civics not science.
With widespread discontent about the state of our democracy and how decisions are made, the unique and novel process for finding a GDF site requires active community participation in the planning and decision-making processes. This new approach to engaging communities in important decisions which affect their lives provides an opportunity to develop a wider and longer-lasting socio-political legacy.
GDFWatch believes this is an important opportunity to shape the future by supporting and guiding how RWM develops and manages Community Partnerships, and ensures communities have the confidence and capability to participate actively in the decision-making process.
The deadline for applications is 12 May 2019. For more information about the posts, visit this Cabinet Office webpage. Good luck with your application!
This week RWM completed their regional Site Evaluation consultation workshops. The deadline for submitting a response to the consultation is 31 March (in England), and 14 April (in Wales).
The consultation process has been quite an adventure for RWM. A taste of the public reaction whenever the issue of radioactive waste is raised.
Public & Political Reaction
Ireland erupted, leading to inter-governmental discussions between Dublin and Westminster about a GDF during delicate Brexit ‘backstop’ negotiations. In Wales there was a request to cancel a public information meeting in Swansea – blocking any meaningful conversation/debate about an issue of national and global significance. And even in England, the merest mention of a workshop or of the generic geological screening maps, encouraged local media to misleadingly write that their area was under consideration for a “nuclear dump”. You can read all the media coverage on our media coverage page.
The noise created by this fallout, while understandable and predictable, somewhat detracted from the purpose of the workshops, to discuss improving the Site Evaluation criteria.
Consultation Events: headline summary observations
GDFWatch attended several of the events, to find out what people were asking, what concerned them, and to gauge wider sentiment about the geological disposal programme. Much of the questioning wasn’t about the site evaluation criteria, but more generally about the siting process, eg ‘how do you define a community’?
Answering such questions was part of the purpose of the workshops, but not their primary objective. However, there seemed to be a general sense at each of the meetings attended by GDFWatch that structuring key issues in this way was a very helpful step to communities beginning to understand an otherwise complex siting process and how it interacts with Planning and other legislation. There also seemed to be a view that this would be an on-going process, rather than something which should be determined within this consultation period.
One point which did come up at each meeting GDFWatch attended was the perceived need to quantify the evaluation criteria, or in some way structure them so they could be assessed more objectively. This was suggested both in terms of offering greater transparency to the public, and in providing RWM with enhanced legal protection if a decision were ever challenged (which most people seemed to think would happen at some point in the future process – though strikingly, it was a community being removed from the siting process by RWM which most people seemed to think was the most likely legal challenge!)
However, this is a just a summary overview, and many other points were raised. You are encouraged to submit your own response to the consultation. If you are considering submitting a response to the consultation, but have remaining questions, you can contact siteevaluation@nda.gov.uk for further information to help inform your submission. Remember to do so before 31 March in England, and 14 April in Wales.
If there was one critique of the consultation workshops, it would be the limited number of stakeholders who attended, and the range of interests they represented. There was diversity of opinion, but attendees tended to be those who’ve been keeping up-to-speed with the GDF siting process, whether that be from industry or community. There was no obvious involvement of the kinds of groups and organisations whose awareness and engagement needs to be enhanced in a consent-based process.
Remember, the deadline for submitting your responses in England is 31 March, and in Wales is 14 April. You can access the consultation documents and find out how to submit a response by visiting RWM’s website.
There was a lot to unpack from the Government’s surprise announcement on the eve of Christmas, and try to understand what that might mean for the GDF siting process in 2019, and beyond.
BEIS announcement
Announced by way of a Written Ministerial Statement, the Government published:
RWM’s supplementary announcements
In addition to the Government’s announcement, RWM also published a suite of information as the first steps in the re-opening of the siting process:
Click on the following links for our separate initial analysis and observations on the Site Evaluation public consultation, and on the National Geological Screening regional summaries.
Working With Communities policy
Following public consultation, there have been subtle changes to the policy which clarify the role of local authorities, and also ease entry into or withdrawal from the siting process. The Government appears to have listened to consultation comments, which were more focused on improving practical implementation of the policy.
Local authorities now have more formal roles in the Community Partnership. For example, they would lead the decision on community withdrawal from the siting process, or of moving to the Test of Public Support (ToPS) stage. These changes reflect the reality of local authorities having wider statutory obligations and functions, but remove the risk that one local authority could stop community interests even discussing participation in the siting process. Also, one local authority cannot now over-rule another (avoiding a “Cumbria 2” scenario).
The Government also seems to have understood that more flexibility in timing and availability of engagement funding is required to support community-level interests from the very earliest stages. The policy has done away with the “formative engagement” phase. The policy now envisages initial ‘Working Groups’, which do not require local authority participation or approval.
There is also now an explicit commitment to providing separate funding to local authorities, to cover any costs associated with participating in the GDF siting process — so that local taxpayers are not be required to bear any financial burden. With the parlous state of local government finances, and the politically contentious and speculative nature of entering the GDF process, this is an important concession by the Government, to reduce real or perceived barriers to participation.
The GDF siting policy, and RWM’s subsequent Community Guidance, sets out an ambitious list of activities for the Community Partnership around citizen engagement and participation, and promises to fund these and other relevant activities. Fulfilling these commitments will be vital if the siting process is to succeed. However, no mention is made of budgets. This is going to be an inevitable area of contention. Communities’ wishlists are likely to exceed HM Treasury’s willingness to pay. But in a consent-based process, the balance of negotiating power does shift away from those who are soliciting the goodwill and participation of a potential partner. Some interesting discussions ahead!
On balance, the new GDF siting policy has gone as far as might reasonably be expected in developing a flexible framework that might help start and sustain discussions. The difficulty lies in implementation.
The Year Ahead
So how will all of this roll-out in the coming year, and what can we expect during 2019?
In brief:
Conclusion
In making the announcement before Christmas, the Government have gone some way to protecting the geological disposal programme from any political inertia or fall-out from Brexit.
The consent-based process is unique and untested, and critics are sceptical that Government will actually adhere to its principles. People are used to a “DAD” (Decide, Act, Defend) process for the siting of major infrastructure projects — a process which has tended to make local people feel marginalised and that key decisions affecting where they live are actually taken elsewhere. Significant effort and discussion will be required during 2019 to explain and explore with the wider community sector how the principles of the consent-based process can be implemented in a way that builds public confidence in the fairness of the GDF siting process and the effectiveness of community involvement in decision-making.
Nobody underestimates the challenge ahead. It should be an interesting 2019!
Communities or organisations seeking their own independent informed advice on the GDF siting process can contact GDFWatch for guidance on how and where to find it. Email us at info@gdfwatch.org.uk
Not entirely sure why this public consultation is being held. There is nothing new in it. However, if it’s an indication of a cautious, inclusive approach by RWM to taking wider civil society opinion with it, then it is to be welcomed.
The consultation document brings together all the existing legal, regulatory, environmental, planning and other requirements RWM is obliged to fulfil during the GDF siting process. In some ways it reads a bit like a ‘roadmap’ for communities. It helps:
At this stage, the six headline factors appear sufficiently broad to encompass a wide range of more detailed issues. Understandably the selected criteria are presented from the perspective of delivering the GDF programme, and of creating the necessary transparent platform on which comparative analyses of potential sites and host communities can be made. However, they also read like the basis of a framework for community discussions, which will need to be continually updated and amended.
The 31 March public consultation deadline therefore seems a little arbitrary and pointless, since these issues will evolve over time, not least to include issues of relevance to those communities eventually engaged in the siting process.
A more basic concern is that civil society and community organisations will not have the capacity to make meaningful responses to the consultation by the end of March.
RWM have indicated that there will be a series of regional workshops to help explain the consultation and support better-informed response submissions. These workshops are expected to be held around the country during February. We are awaiting event details from RWM.
However, experience from regional workshops for the National Geological Screening, National Policy Statement and Working With Communities consultations suggest that it is the same organisations which tend to attend these events. While useful for those attending, the workshops are not always the most effective means of reaching out beyond historical core-engaged stakeholders.
RWM are to be applauded for taking an open and inclusive approach, especially when it’s not, procedurally, even technically necessary. We hope that they will continue to keep these issues open as the siting process progresses, rather than a draw a line under them on 31 March 2019.
For a copy of the consultation document and to find out more about the consultation, visit the RWM siting website.
Because radioactive waste management is a devolved responsibility, RWM will be holding a separate but parallel public consultation in Wales. They have produced specific Welsh consultation documents (in both English and Welsh languages). The Welsh public consultation ends on 14 April 2019.
The country briefs below provide a headline overview of anticipated geological disposal and related activity across the world in 2019. From a socio-political perspective, it could be a very interesting year for geological disposal.
The country summaries are not ‘technical’, but place national geological disposal programmes within the context of wider political and social discourse. The nuclear sector has long-accepted that the barriers to progressing geological disposal are political and social rather than technical, and these summaries are designed to help foster evolving thought on these issues.
A review of media output from around the world highlights a coherent global geological disposal narrative, with key common socio-political themes threading their way through geological disposal programmes, eg:
Some of these issues may be confronted head-on during 2019, for example:
What will also be interesting to observe in 2019 is the impact of the wider political and social challenges occurring in many countries around the world. Geological disposal clearly does not operate in a political or social vacuum. Public sentiment towards it can be driven by wider ‘non-nuclear’ issues. For example, the disconnect felt between the governed and their current political infrastructures seems to be a feature of ‘populism’ planet-wide. In this context, geological disposal could be seen negatively as a totemic example of that wider general public perception of national government making decisions without reference to the needs and concerns of people at a local level. But as societies discuss resolving these broader political governance grievances, public attitudes and behaviours will have to shift, with potentially positive implications for geological disposal if the programmes can be aligned with broader societal ambitions such as those for improved local democracy and public accountability, intergenerational decision-making, etc.
The attached country summaries are not a comprehensive review of all geological disposal and repository programmes. They only cover countries for which there is credible or verified information. Some countries not covered by the summaries will have interesting stories to tell. If your country is not mentioned, please do tell your story. We want to be as accurate as possible but rely upon your input for veracity.
These summaries will be updated during the year. Please alert us if there are any factual inaccuracies, other errors, or country programme updates, by emailing editorial@gdfwatch.org.uk
You can download the summaries in word document format here.
COUNTRY SUMMARIES: 2019
| Australia |
| Progress in 2019 for Australia’s repository program will hinge on the outcome of a court case initiated by a South Australian Aboriginal group. The group wants their people to be included in a community ballot to determine whether the proposed radioactive waste management facility for the disposal of Australian low-level waste and the interim storage of the country’s intermediate-level waste (which is slated to be situated in the Kimba or Hawker areas) should proceed.
There is a Federal Court Hearing on 30 January. No judgement is expected on that date. With the possibility for appeals, and potential further legal actions brought by other interest groups, the Australian repository program could yet be a protracted process. For example, over Christmas, another Aboriginal group tabled a new, separate law suit claiming they were not properly involved during the public consultation process. The current federal Australian government is seeking to negotiate an out-of-court agreement, to build trust and to avoid a potentially protracted delay in the siting process. However, there are federal government elections due in 2019 (expected to be held by May). While there is bipartisan agreement on the need for a national radioactive waste management facility, the results of the election could further complicate political decision-making. |
| Belgium |
| In 2018, ONDRAF made recommendations to the Belgian Government advising that geological disposal is the best available option for managing the country’s higher-level radioactive wastes. The Government was also advised to conduct an extensive public engagement programme before final decisions are taken on the siting of any repository. However, the Belgian Government has not yet reached any decisions. The coalition government is not stable, and it is uncertain when the Belgian Government will make a decision on geological disposal.
In the meantime, construction progresses on the low-level waste repository in Dessel (due for completion in the first half of the 2020s). |
| Canada |
| There are three separate repository programmes in Canada. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization Organisation (NWMO) is responsible for the national deep geological repository for higher-activity radioactive waste; Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is planning a deep geological repository for low and intermediate wastes; Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) seeks a near-surface facility for low-level radioactive waste.
Each project is deeply engaged in conversations with local communities. There are no major project milestones in 2019 for any of the planned repositories. It is an on-going process of working with affected communities, paying particular attention to the needs and concerns of indigenous peoples. Canada has led the way in early and proactive community engagement – vital for building public acceptance, but necessarily moving at a pace with which the communities feel comfortable. NWMO have started the deep borehole drilling phase of their geological investigations, and this will continue through 2019. The added complication for Canada are the cross-border concerns of environmentalists in Canada and the US about building radioactive waste repositories close to the Great Lakes. |
| Croatia (see also Slovenia) |
| Croatia’s Krsko nuclear power plant is located in Slovenia and is shared with Slovenia. Discussions continue between the two countries on finding a site for the deep geological disposal of higher activity radioactive waste.
In the meantime, Croatia is pressing ahead with a low-level radioactive waste facility despite objections from Bosnia-Herzogevina that the proposed facility is located too close to their shared border and that there has been too little consultation and engagement with Bosnia. |
| Czech Republic |
| In 2019 the Czech Republic are expected to finalise the shortlist of areas which could potentially host a deep geological repository. Advice and recommendations will be put to the Czech Government, but no further decisions or activity is planned in 2019. The siting process and geological investigations will start after the government has finalised the shortlist of areas. |
| Finland |
| The Finns continue with the excavation and construction of their deep geological repository. The process is governed by regular reviews and staged regulatory licensing approvals. No significant events are expected in 2019. |
| France |
| French authorities remain confident that a general licence application for the proposed repository at Bure will be submitted by the end of 2019.
A formal public debate organised by the National Commission of Public Debate was expected during 2019. The debate is not intended to review geological disposal policy, but is intended to sustain transparency by staging a further discussion that engages the public in radioactive waste management. However, the Commission’s priorities may be changed following the recent ‘gilets jaunes’ protests in France. Time may now be given to more pressing issues of public interest rather than geological disposal of radioactive waste. |
| Germany |
| 2019 could be an interesting year for Germany.
Legislation in 2017 laid out a new framework for how Germany would go about selecting a radioactive waste disposal site, and also ensured there would be significant public consultation and engagement in that process. In the coming year, Germany will initiate a public communications and engagement programme, as a key part of the process of presenting the federal government with a detailed dossier in 2020 of geological information, analysis of public sentiment, and recommendations on the next stage. |
| Japan |
| Understandably the Japanese are taking a steady and cautious approach to their repository site selection process. The social and political fall-out from Fukushima only adds to the problems of managing long-established anti-nuclear public sentiment, distrust in politicians and the nuclear sector, and the geological complexity and insecurity of parts of the country.
The Japanese Government published a “Nationwide Map of Scientific Features relevant for Geological Disposal” in 2017, which identified potential geological ‘green areas’ where it could be possible to safely construct a deep geological repository. This map has been the basis on which NUMO (Nuclear Waste Management Organisation) has been building awareness and understanding of the issues and opportunities amongst mayors and municipal officials across the country. NUMO’s difficulties are evident from separate actions by a number of the Prefectures, which have already indicated that they are not prepared to host a deep geological repository. The Japanese will continue their cautious consensus-building approach through 2019. Not just with mayors and municipalities, but with a programme of public information events. It is worth noting that despite broader post-Fukishima anti-nuclear public and political reaction, recent media commentary has been urging decisions be made on radioactive waste disposal. It seems the mainstream Japanese media believe that removing radioactive waste from the surface is a better option. |
| Korea |
| South Korea is conducting a significant public consultation and discussion programme, alongside its technical preparations to build a deep geological repository for higher-activity radioactive waste.
These public discussions and the technical analysis will inform subsequent Government decisions on how to select a site for the repository. There are no plans for significant announcements in 2019. |
| Luxembourg |
| Luxembourg produces very small quantities of higher-activity radioactive waste, mainly from medical sources. In 2018 the country entered into an agreement with Belgium for the interim storage and final disposal of its radioactive waste. Legislation has been laid before the Belgian parliament. |
| Saudi Arabia |
| The Saudi’s have not yet published a detailed radioactive waste management programme and timeline. During 2018 Saudi Arabia announced an intention to build their repository in a militarised zone to be established on the border with Qatar. This announcement came at a time of heightened tensions between the two countries. Whether Saudi Arabia persists with its proposal may be subject to wider geopolitical and diplomatic discussions in the region. |
| Slovenia (see also, Croatia) |
| Slovenia and Croatia share a nuclear power plant, at Krško – a legacy from the former Yugoslavia. The countries are planning to build a joint deep geological repository somewhere in Slovenia or Croatia for spent fuel and higher-activity radioactive waste from the Krško plant.
In the meantime, Slovenia is pressing ahead with a facility for low and intermediate level radioactive waste. An environmental impact assessment is to be conducted to secure the necessary environmental consents. With other documentation expected to be completed in the new year, the Slovenian Government is confident a final building permit will be granted during 2019. Construction is planned from 2020-22, with the facility starting operations in 2023. |
| Sweden |
| Following the decision of the Environmental Court in January 2018, SKB are required to submit further information on copper corrosion to the Swedish Government by 30 April 2019.
However, currently there is effectively no Swedish Government. Discussions continue between the political parties about forming a government, following the results of the September 2018 elections. It remains possible that another election may be necessary, further delaying the formation of a government. Regardless of the outcome of these political discussions, it is expected that the Government will take 6-9 months to consider and respond to SKB’s copper corrosion evidence. That would mean it would be at the end of 2019 at the earliest before next steps were taken – assuming the Swedish Government are content to proceed. A final decision by Osthammar municipality is required before the government can give a permit for the planned repository at Forsmark to proceed. Although a local referendum is not required, it is thought the municipality will hold one before taking their own decision. Nobody is expecting these local votes until 2020 at the earliest. |
| Switzerland |
| The Swiss press ahead with their siting programme, and will be spending 2019 drilling boreholes.
The Swiss Federal government announced in November 2018 that it had approved the third and final stage of the site selection process – deep borehole investigations in the three shortlisted regions. These investigations will take place over the next 3-4 years, and the results analysed to find the region/s considered to be most suitable and safest for the construction of a deep geological repository. Nagra, the organisation responsible for developing the repository, is expected to submit a general licence application for the disposal facility by 2024. Approval of the licence is then not expected until around 2030. There is still some uncertainty whether a national or local referendum will be required after the federal council and Swiss parliament have approved the general licence. The repository is expected to be operational around 2040, initially taking low and intermediate level wastes, with higher-activity waste ten years later. |
| Taiwan |
| Taiwan updated its geological disposal programme in February 2018, ruling out certain parts of the country on geological grounds, and moving to the next phase of identifying potential areas in which to site a repository. This stage was not expected to be completed until 2028.
The November public referendum result up-ended the Government’s nuclear phase-out policy, and has subsequently brought focus back to bear on the country’s management and disposal of its radioactive waste. It will take some time in early 2019 for the Government to absorb the referendum result and reassess potential implications for its wider energy strategy – including geological disposal and the interim storage of radioactive waste. It is a possibility that the Taiwanese Government will refocus on and give more impetus to its radioactive waste management and disposal programme. |
| United Arab Emirates (UAE) |
| The Government recently announced that radioactive waste will be stored on-site at the UAE’s new nuclear power station for up to 80 years after site closure. The UAE Government has not yet decided its longer-term radioactive waste management policy, and it is unclear whether such an announcement will happen in 2019. |
| United Kingdom (UK) |
| The UK Government announced the re-opening of its geological disposal siting process in a long-awaited, but still surprise announcement just before Christmas 2018.
It is unclear at this stage how the process will proceed. The proposed siting process is complex, and there remains a high-level of public and community unawareness of the issues. The wider UK social and political environment, certainly for the first part of 2019, is also clouded by the uncertainties of Brexit. It is therefore thought unlikely there will be much movement in the GDF siting process until later in the year. |
| United States of America (USA) |
| Political uncertainty also shapes the 2019 outlook in the United States, though probably in a more positive fashion from the perspective of the geological disposal programme.
Despite sustained and overwhelming bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, in recent years the US Senate has blocked all attempts to fund the Yucca Mountain programme. However, after the midterm elections, the Republican Party no longer needs to protect the Senator from Nevada. Although the Democrats now control the House of Representatives, there is no reason to suppose bipartisan support will change. The financial costs of and local political sentiment towards maintaining radioactive waste in interim surface facilities (because the planned disposal repository has not been built) are building pressure for political action/decisions. |
| Countries with geological disposal programmes, but for which we have insufficient credible or verified information |
| Belarus : Bulgaria : Estonia : China : Hungary : India : Italy : Latvia : Lithuania : Pakistan : Romania : Russia : Serbia : Slovakia : Ukraine |
| Countries with no known immediate plans to progress a geological disposal process, either because it is too early in their nuclear programmes, the issue has been deferred, or the underpinning policy and legislative frameworks are under development |
| Austria : Azerbaijan : Bangladesh : Denmark : Ghana : Greece : Holland : Indonesia : Iran : Israel : Jordan : Kazakhstan : Kenya : Kuwait : Kyrgyzstan : Lebanon : Moldova : Nigeria : Norway : Poland : Portugal : Philippines : Singapore : South Africa : Spain : Tajikistan : Thailand : Turkey : Uganda : Uzbekistan : Vietnam |
The publication of the tailored review on the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) sets out some revised principles for the Committee’s future role.
While the review says that the Committee’s role and objectives needs updating, and that these should be set out in a new framework, the Government says little about what that role might actually be. However, one specific area of activity under review is the extent to which, and on what basis, CoRWM more actively participates in public and community engagement.
The July appointment of Sir Nigel Thrift as CoRWM’s new Chair underlines the Government’s awareness of the need to shift priority as the siting process relaunches. Sir Nigel is a human geographer, a social scientist. This is a marked shift from CoRWM’s historic technical/scientific foundations, and a recognition that the issues are increasingly social rather than technical – civics not science.
The minutes from CoRWM’s recent public plenary sessions indicate that the Committee itself has been examining whether and how it should become more active and more visible. Those who gave evidence to the Committee, including GDFWatch, were in agreement that a revamped CoRWM could have a critical role in building public trust in geological disposal and the siting process.
The tailored review says conclusions on CoRWM’s engagement role and activities will be progressed during December. This short timescale suggests that the Government already has an outline plan. In a tight fiscal environment, even if BEIS wanted a much-expanded role for CoRWM, the Department may not have the funds for anything other than a passive role.
However, given the wider civil society sector’s concern that RWM may not be viewed as a ‘neutral player’, there may be value in a body such as CoRWM filling the engagement void. The Chief Executive of a large national community-based organisation noted that even if RWM employed a small army of “independent” facilitators, they would still be seen as having an ‘agenda’ and that a community would most likely treat the relationship as ‘adversarial’ from the start. This is a difficult foundation from which to build trust.
But CoRWM might be able to provide an effective bridge to trust-buiding, especially in the early stages of public and community discussion. Whether CoRWM is staffed-up, or funds a partnership with civil society organisations, is less important than ensuring the initial awareness-building programme delivers not just increased public understanding, but confidence in geological disposal and the siting process.
While experience normally dictates against optimism, there are sufficient signs that the Government recognises the need for a revised role for CoRWM. We can only hope Ministers hear the fears of the civil society sector and equip the Committee to be an active and effective trust-building bridge with communities.
There is overwhelming local support for Sweden’s planned geological disposal facility (GDF). Three out of four residents in the host community of Östhammar are in favour of the project.
The level of local public support for the project was revealed in the annual opinion poll conducted in the Östhammar Municipality on behalf of the Swedish GDF delivery body, SKB.
SKB measures public opinion in the community every year. It is the kind of on-going measurement of local opinion that will be required in the UK when communities here are actively engaged in discussions about hosting a GDF.
In the Swedish poll, based on 800 telephone interviews, 77 percent of the respondents in Östhammar said that they were “completely in favour” or “in favour” of plans to build the final repository for radioactive waste in their community. SKB’s CEO Eva Halldén also pointed out the sustained level of support, saying: “What is particularly gratifying is that the high figures are so stable over time.”
The opinion poll also found a high level of confidence in SKB, with 76 percent of local respondents stating that they have a “very high” or “rather high” level of confidence in the company.
Such weight of local community support is despite the uncertainty created by Sweden’s Environmental Court decision earlier this year, when the Court expressed concerns about the long-term safety of the copper canisters in which waste is placed.
The regulatory approval and licensing process continues to move forward, and the Swedish Government has now formally asked SKB to respond, by early 2019, to questions raised by the Environmental Court.
But before the Swedish Government comes to a decision, local people will be consulted in a referendum. This is because the community has the right of veto on whether to proceed or not — very similar to the “Test of Public Support” proposed in the UK.
It has been over 10 years, 4 Prime Ministers, and 5 Administrations since the original Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) recommended geological disposal.
In that period successive Governments of all Parties have recommitted to geological disposal. With the recent publication of position papers updating their advice on a range of key issues, the latest CoRWM have also reaffirmed their expert opinion that geological disposal remains the best available way to dispose of higher-activity radioactive waste.
Four new papers have been issued in response to specific concerns raised in stakeholder submissions to the public consultations earlier this year on the GDF draft National Policy Statement (NPS) and the Working With Communities siting policy:
Several replies to the consultations advocated continued interim surface storage rather than disposal in a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF). CoRWM say nothing has changed in the past decade to alter their opinion that interim surface storage is not a viable long-term solution. However, they remain committed to closely monitoring international scientific developments in the event better alternative options become available.
2. Geological disposal of radioactive waste – safety requirements
Some stakeholders raised concerns that there were technical issues which could not yet be addressed but that could lead to safety failures in the future. CoRWM recognises the legitimacy of these concerns, saying there are a considerable number of technical issues which must be satisfied before a GDF could be licensed. These will be picked up by the regulators, who would not approve a GDF until these matters were resolved. CoRWM will continue to ensure that such concerns are ‘mapped’ into the GDF safety assessment and safety case and successfully resolved.
3. Selecting a geological disposal facility (GDF) site based on the best geology
There continues to be a view amongst some stakeholders that we should be looking for the “best” geology. CoRWM believes this would compromise the primacy of ‘community consent’, and that scientifically no such thing as ‘the best’ geology exists. As is exampled around the world, there are different geological conditions in which a GDF can be safely built.
4. Transport considerations for radioactive materials
In the lengthiest of the papers, CoRWM directly addresses public concern about the transportation of radioactive waste. The Committee agrees that transport should be minimised as far as possible, but there are other risks and issues which need to be taken into account, and they note that radioactive waste has been transported around the country on a regular basis for decades without incident. CoRWM recognises public concern, and believes that these concerns need to be taken into account by the relevant public authorities.
The Cumbria Trust has questioned CoRWM’s “independence” because they believe the Committee has changed its position in order to be compliant with Government policy. We absolutely agree that the credibility of CoRWM’s independent expert opinion is vital. But from what we can see, there are no grounds or evidence to suggest that CoRWM has changed its position on this issue.
It is entirely possible that CoRWM have rephrased their position, but that’s not the same as changing their position. There is a strong possibility that something of a “you say tomayto, we say tomarto” thing is going on here.
For example, the Cumbria Trust “advocates actively seeking volunteers from areas which have promising geology”, and the purpose of the National Geological Screening (NGS) exercise is to collate and distribute all known relevant geological criteria so that communities can understand whether their local geology is “promising” or not. Given the high costs of geological investigation, and the inevitable National Audit Office (NAO) and Public Accounts Committee (PAC) scrutiny there will be on how those funds are spent, the most likely sites to be investigated will be those with the most promising rather than the least promising geology (assuming a ‘willing’ community). It would seem the Cumbria Trust’s preferred outcome is likely what the NGS process will deliver.
People will be coming from different perspectives and therefore will articulate the issues slightly differently – but that does not mean they are in disagreement. Such misunderstandings, different articulations of the same issue, and splitting of hairs are likely to permeate the GDF programme for many years. It is entirely right that community groups like the Cumbria Trust air their concerns, and that these are understood and appreciated from the community’s perspective. But on this particular occasion we do not believe CoRWM have changed their opinion or lost their independence. However, like the Cumbria Trust, we will continue to monitor all key players’ future actions.
One of the more bizarre political alignments under Donald Trump’s Presidency, is the apparent support from the ‘Left’ for Trump’s revival of the United States’ geological disposal programme.
‘Progressives’ in America are concerned by the number of interim surface storage sites across the country, the amount of waste they store, and the perceived heightened threat that extreme weather, geological and climate change events pose to the safety of those sites. This analysis is drawn from US media output and political comment on our international media review page.
Perhaps the most high-profile example of this Progressive ‘push’ for a geological disposal solution was the lengthy analysis of the issue during the summer by John Oliver on his popular HBO programme ‘Last Week Tonight’. If you don’t get diverted by his tangential comic asides, Oliver makes a forceful case for geological disposal [Heads up: item is 18 minutes long]:
Oliver debunks populist and misleading representations of radioactive waste, and sets out the ethical and environmental case for geological disposal. But to be clear, he does not support the specific Yucca Mountain proposal, which is being revived by the Trump Administration. That is true of many on the Left. Ernest Moniz, who was Obama’s Energy Secretary, recently opined that the still-required detailed geological analysis of the Yucca Mountain site may mean that it is not feasible or sensible to build a repository there. He supports a consent-based approach to finding a site, rather than imposing a potentially flawed solution. However, there seems to be little dispute in the US that geological disposal is ethically, environmentally and economically the right way forward.
Funding to revive the Yucca Mountain programme is a key element of current Congressional budget discussions. One of Washington DC’s leading political news-sites, Roll Call, named the geological disposal programme as one of the top energy and environmental priorities for the Federal Government. There are attempts within Congress to provide compensation to local communities hosting interim storage facilities as a way of creating financial pressure on the Federal Government to find a suitable site for a GDF. This is clearly a story that is going to continue to run in the US. We will keep you updated.