CARL Workshop Antwerp

1. CARL WorkshopAntwerp Results of the Country Studies UNITED KINGDOM

2. The Road to SI in the UK • Previous site investigation processes stopped by local opposition • 1975/6 UKAEA begins search for sites for HLW repository • 1981 Test drilling programme abandoned • 1983 Nirex identifies two sites for investigation for short-lived LILW repository • 1984 Permission withdrawn at one site • 1986 Three additional sites named for investigation • 1987 Investigations abandoned at all sites • 1987 Nirex begins new site selection process for deep repository for ILW and some LLW • 1997 Plans to construct rock characterisation facility at Sellafield rejected United Kingdom

3. Policy Responsibility • Responsibility for RWM policy lies with UK Government and the Devolved Administrations • Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs • Department of the Environment Northern Ireland • National Assembly for Wales • Scottish Executive United Kingdom

4. Current SI Processes • Current policy-related SI processes • Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) • Low Level Waste (LLW) policy review • Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) United Kingdom

5. Current SI Processes • Focus/scope of main activities • CoRWM: to recommend long-term options for ILW/HLW (also considering ‘non-waste’: spent fuel, uranium, plutonium) • LLW policy review: to establish revised policy framework that meets needs of nuclear and non-nuclear waste producers • NDA: decommissioning process and site end states – currently responsible for 20 sites United Kingdom

6. Current SI Processes • Organization of SI in the UK • Government’s Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) process • Stage 1: Consulting on how process should be conducted/developing framework (2001-2003) • Stage 2: CoRWM established to appraise options, consult and make recommendations – reports July 2006 (2003-2006) • Stage 3: Consultation on how to implement option(s) adopted (2006-2007?) • Stage 4: Begin implementation (2007-2008?) United Kingdom

7. Current SI Processes • Organization of SI in the UK • Government’s LLW policy review • National stakeholder workshops 2005 • National consultation early 2006 • Reports July 2006 United Kingdom

8. Current SI Processes • Organization of SI in the UK • Nuclear Decommissioning Authority • Established April 2005 by Act of Parliament • Non-departmental public body • Statutory duty to give support to the social and economic life of local communities • Stakeholder engagement mechanisms • Local Site Stakeholder Groups • National Stakeholder Forum United Kingdom

9. Current SI Processes

10. Current SI Processes • Organization of SI in the UK: Influence • BNFL NSD has had an influence on attitudes of some stakeholders towards SI • Nirex consulted with stakeholders & public on key issues: modified its operating practices and technical disposal concept • CoRWM process has involved extensive SI and generally viewed as having integrity but also received some criticisms for time spent on ‘unnecessary’ consultation United Kingdom

11. Current SI Processes • What kind of SI does UK have? • Long-term RWM: different SI processes involve national & local level stakeholders • As yet no official debate on implementation principles (e.g. incentives, voluntarism, veto) • Decommissioning: SI involves combination of national & local level stakeholders • Outcome of RWM policy processes will have implications for some decommissioning sites • As will outcome of energy policy review (2006) United Kingdom

12. Stakeholder Identification • Who are the main stakeholders in the UK? • Waste producers • NDA and its contractors (BNFL, UKAEA) • Other nuclear industry producers (e.g. British Energy) • Non-nuclear waste producers (hospitals, research, etc.) • Regulators • Nuclear Installations Inspectorate • Environment Agency/Scottish Environment Protection Agency • Local authorities • Nuclear Legacy Advisory Forum (national network) • Individual local councils at nuclear sites (e.g. Cumbria County Council, Copeland Borough Council) • NGOs • National NGOs (e.g. Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace UK, Scotland Against Nuclear Dumping) • Local grassroots groups at nuclear sites (e.g. Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment) • The ‘general public’ United Kingdom

13. Stakeholder Identification • How are stakeholders identified? • Participation in national processes now opened up beyond the ‘usual suspects’ • e.g. anyone having an interest is able to make an input via CoRWM’s Public and Stakeholder Engagement process • Some established interests have strong, well-resourced representation – others have limited or few resources United Kingdom

14. Stakeholder Identification • What role do stakeholders play? • Stakeholders are being consulted during the formulation of policy (and policy advice) and are able to raise issues doe consideration but do not make any decisions about choice of options • In relation to the NDA’s activities, stakeholders are consulted both on overall strategy and on site-specific issues United Kingdom

15. Re-Framing process • 1997 failure of the Sellafield site investigations provoked a crisis • Nirex’s mission and even its continued existence was challenged • Government was left with no policy for ILW or HLW • Resulting shift from a technocratic to a socio-technical framing of RWM issue • Stakeholder involvement seen as essential to achieve legitimacy and acceptance United Kingdom

16. Re-Framing process • Other frames that interact with the developments in RWM • Legitimation of democratic institutions • Openness • Transparency • Accountability • Reframing of nuclear power as solution to: • Climate change • Energy security • Security/terrorism United Kingdom

17. Current Framing • Framing of current SI program • Multiple frames applied to the radwaste issue • ‘Ethical imperative to deal with it now’ • ‘Environmental imperative to ensure long-term safety’ • ‘Social & technical issues need to be resolved together’ • ‘No victims’ / ‘Win-win solution’ (communities) • ‘Opens the door for new nuclear power stations’ (NGOs) • ‘Exhaust the opposition through SI processes’ (NGOs) • Cautious engagement by many NGO and community stakeholders – some NGOs abstain • The participatory / deliberative turn in RWM policy reflects a more general trend (e.g. GMOs) United Kingdom

18. Overview UK • Multiple SI processes taking place • Main Government focus is still at level of developing a national policy • Decommissioning SI processes are already site/community focused • Decisions made after July 2006 will set an agenda for implementation - and test the robustness of the stakeholder involvement approach United Kingdom

19. Concluding Questions • Institutional context • In what ways does the wider institutional context influence the conditions for SI? • How do changes in institutional context change the conditions for progress in RWM? • What consequences does the institutional context have for the power and influence of different groups in the process? United Kingdom

20. Concluding Questions • Stakeholder Involvement • Who doesn’t participate and what are the implications in different contexts? • What are the consequences of different approaches to resourcing stakeholder involvement? • What constraints exist on the extent to which stakeholders can influence outcomes and are these clear to all? United Kingdom

21. Concluding Questions • Framing • The SI approach is framed differently but to what extent does it differ from traditional consultative approaches in its outcomes? • What impact do different ways of framing the issue have on SI processes in different contexts? • To what extent are different framings of the issue reconciled and how is this achieved in different contexts? United Kingdom

22. CARL WorkshopAntwerp Results of the Country Studies UNITED KINGDOM