Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) - 16 October 2007

1. Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS)-16 October 2007

2. Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS)

3. CoRWM’s recommendations • Published July 2006 - after significant public and stakeholder engagement - 15 recommendations • Geological disposal • Interim storage • Voluntarism and partnership approach

4. International state of play 39 countries with significant radioactive waste (as at 2004) • 18 taken decision for geological disposal • 9 have reasonably active site-selection programmes • 4 (Finland, France, Sweden, USA) already characterising preferred sites • 10 expressed initial preference for disposal • 9 yet to decide • 2 no stated position No nation outside the UK, as far as is known, has opted for indefinite storage

5. Government’s response • Defra and Devolved Administrations - responded October 2006 • Accepted primary recommendations • NDA to implement • Nirex to be integrated into the NDA - maintain skills and experience

6. The Government’s consultation Consultation document covers: • technical programme and aspects of design/delivery of a geological disposal facility; • process and criteria for site selection; The latter to include: • development of voluntarism/partnership approach; • the assessment and evaluation of potential sites, including initial screening-out of unsuitable areas Deadline for comments 2 November 2007

7. Chapters 2 & 3 - Technical issues Q2. The design concept? Q1. Waste Inventory to be disposed of? Q3. Public and stakeholder engagement?

8. Chapter 4 - Regulation and control Q4. System of regulation? Health and Safety Executive Environment Agencies Office for Civil Nuclear Safety Department for Transport Q5. Planning and its integration with the voluntarism and partnership approach? Planning Permission Infrastructure Planning Commission? √ SEA √ EIA √ SA Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) - Independent scrutiny and advice during the MRWS programme

9. Chapter 5 – Community and invitations Q7. Process; Invitations and information • information pack • well publicised • Awareness raising • potential host community declaring an interest • must indicate level of support from decision-making bodies and wider local interests • agree? Q6. What is a ‘community’? • Host Community • Wider Local Interests • Decision Making Bodies • Credible expressions of interest? • a community that can demonstrate broad-based support • agree? alternative?

10. Chapter 5 – Criteria Q8. Initial sub-surface screening criteria Two main factors: • risk of accidental intrusion by future generations • need to protect the quality of exploitable groundwaterBGS to apply criteria following expression of interest • Agree criteria? Agree how applied? Other ideas? Q9. Assessment criteria • Progressive assessment • Criteria derived from SEA, SA and EIA • Community support ; Geological setting; • Impact on people; Impact on environment / landscape; • Socio-economic conditions; Transport and infrastructure; • Cost; Timing and ease of implementation. • Agree criteria? Others? How applied?

11. Chapter 5 – Partnerships and packages Q10. Whether/how a partnership arrangement could be used to support a voluntarism approach? Q11. Work of Communities / partnerships to be funded by Government (engagement package)? To include what? Q12. How ensure lasting benefits to the host community? benefits packages? In other countries such packages have included: • Local training/skills development; • Support of local service industries; • Investment in public services/infrastructure; • Trust funds; • Tax payments on a facility; • Property price protection; • Information/visitors’ centre; • Health and environmental monitoring; and • Centres of excellence

12. In conclusion • MRWS proposes a framework for moving forward • Government has produced consultation document • Responses will inform our future programme • Programme influenced by ongoing interactions with other stakeholders

13. www.nda.gov.uk