CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 CARL Workshop Antwerp Results of the Country Studies UNITED KINGDOM

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 United Kingdom 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abandoned –1983 Nirex identifies two sites for investigation for short- lived LILW repository –1984 Permission withdrawn at one site –1986 Three additional sites named for investigation –1987 Investigations abandoned at all sites –1987 Nirex begins new site selection process for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

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 United Kingdom 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

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 United Kingdom Current SI Processes Current policy-related SI processes –Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) –Low Level Waste (LLW) policy review –Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA)

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 United Kingdom 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

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 United Kingdom 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 ( ) Stage 2: CoRWM established to appraise options, consult and make recommendations – reports July 2006 ( ) Stage 3: Consultation on how to implement option(s) adopted ( ?) Stage 4: Begin implementation ( ?) Current SI Processes

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 United Kingdom Organization of SI in the UK –Government’s LLW policy review National stakeholder workshops 2005 National consultation early 2006 Reports July 2006 Current SI Processes

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 United Kingdom 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 Current SI Processes

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 Current SI Processes Sponsor/ manager Government BNFL UK AEA Nirex UK CEED EACiria DefraDTIMoD Process/ event MRWS CoRWM LLW NDA NGO cons. Isolus AWEPascalea Cricklewood& JASM NSD Magnox Dounreay Preview Workshops Public ConsensusConference MagnoxAuthoris ’ n Safe-grounds Year

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 United Kingdom 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 Current SI Processes

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 United Kingdom 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)

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 United Kingdom 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’

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 United Kingdom 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

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 United Kingdom 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

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 United Kingdom 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

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 United Kingdom 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

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 United Kingdom 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)

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 United Kingdom 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

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 United Kingdom 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?

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 United Kingdom 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?

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 United Kingdom 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?

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 CARL Workshop Antwerp Results of the Country Studies UNITED KINGDOM