carl workshop antwerp

CARL

Wor

ksho

p An

twer

pNo

vem

ber 3

0 – D

ecem

ber 1

, 200

5

CARL WorkshopCARL WorkshopAntwerpAntwerp

Results of the Country StudiesUNITED KINGDOM

United Kingdom

CARL

Wor

ksho

p An

twer

pNo

vem

ber 3

0 – D

ecem

ber 1

, 200

5The 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lived LILW repository– 1984 Permission withdrawn at one site– 1986 Three additional sites named for investigation– 1987 Investigations abandoned at all sites– 1987 Nirex begins new site selection process for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

CARL

Wor

ksho

p An

twer

pNo

vem

ber 3

0 – D

ecem

ber 1

, 200

5Policy 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

CARL

Wor

ksho

p An

twer

pNo

vem

ber 3

0 – D

ecem

ber 1

, 200

5Current 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

CARL

Wor

ksho

p An

twer

pNo

vem

ber 3

0 – D

ecem

ber 1

, 200


• 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

CARL

Wor

ksho

p An

twer

pNo

vem

ber 3

0 – D

ecem

ber 1

, 200

5

• 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?)

Current SI Processes

United Kingdom

CARL

Wor

ksho

p An

twer

pNo

vem

ber 3

0 – D

ecem

ber 1

, 200

5

• Organization of SI in the UK– Government’s LLW policy review

• National stakeholder workshops 2005• National consultation early 2006• Reports July 2006


United Kingdom

CARL

Wor

ksho

p An

twer

pNo

vem

ber 3

0 – D

ecem

ber 1

, 200

5

• 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

CARL

Wor

ksho

p An

twer

pNo

vem

ber 3

0 – D

ecem

ber 1

, 200


Sponsor/manager Government

BNFL UKAEA Nirex UK

CEED EA CiriaDefra DTI MoD

Process/event

MR

WS

CoR

WM

LLW

ND

A

ND

AN

GO

cons.

Isolus

AW

E

Pascalea

Cricklew

ood&

JAS

M

NS

D

Magnox

Dounreay

Preview

Workshop

s Public

Consensu

sConferenc

e Magnox

Authoris’n

Safe-

grounds

Year

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

United Kingdom

CARL

Wor

ksho

p An

twer

pNo

vem

ber 3

0 – D

ecem

ber 1

, 200

5

• 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

CARL

Wor

ksho

p An

twer

pNo

vem

ber 3

0 – D

ecem

ber 1

, 200


• 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

CARL

Wor

ksho

p An

twer

pNo

vem

ber 3

0 – D

ecem

ber 1

, 200

5Stakeholder 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

CARL

Wor

ksho

p An

twer

pNo

vem

ber 3

0 – D

ecem

ber 1

, 200


• 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

CARL

Wor

ksho

p An

twer

pNo

vem

ber 3

0 – D

ecem

ber 1

, 200


• 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

CARL

Wor

ksho

p An

twer

pNo

vem

ber 3

0 – D

ecem

ber 1

, 200

5Re-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

CARL

Wor

ksho

p An

twer

pNo

vem

ber 3

0 – D

ecem

ber 1

, 200

5Re-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

CARL

Wor

ksho

p An

twer

pNo

vem

ber 3

0 – D

ecem

ber 1

, 200

5Current 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

CARL

Wor

ksho

p An

twer

pNo

vem

ber 3

0 – D

ecem

ber 1

, 200

5Overview 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

CARL

Wor

ksho

p An

twer

pNo

vem

ber 3

0 – D

ecem

ber 1

, 200

5Concluding 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

CARL

Wor

ksho

p An

twer

pNo

vem

ber 3

0 – D

ecem

ber 1

, 200


• 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

CARL

Wor

ksho

p An

twer

pNo

vem

ber 3

0 – D

ecem

ber 1

, 200


• 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

Wor

ksho

p An

twer

pNo

vem

ber 3

0 – D

ecem

ber 1

, 200

5

CARL WorkshopCARL WorkshopAntwerpAntwerp

Results of the Country StudiesUNITED KINGDOM

carl workshop antwerp

Documents