The meeting was organised by the Regulators Joint Programme Office (JPO), which acts on behalf of the HSE’s Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII), the Office of Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS), and the Environment Agency.
The JPO’s role is to act as a central point of contact for design companies (vendors) engaged in the Generic Design Assessment (GDA) process, devised to consider the safety, security, and environmental aspects of new nuclear power station designs prior to licensing and approval by the regulators.
This note was prepared to record the main issues which arose during the above seminar, and to confirm the actions agreed by participants. Where appropriate, the regulators will respond to the NGOs on the issues raised by them at the seminar, set out in annex 1.
NGO representatives did not accept the legitimacy of the Government’s decision to support nuclear power and questioned the regulators’ decision to instigate the GDA process.
Some NGO representatives do not consider that the Government’s nuclear programme should be implemented and several participants had been very reluctant to attend, but were prepared to participate in the seminar provided that it is not used against them as a means of legitimising new nuclear power stations.
The seminar was viewed by NGOs as an opportunity to scrutinise the regulatory process, feed back their views, and pose questions (which the regulators would respond to). They are opposed to a new generation of nuclear power stations, but are prepared to try dialogue once more.
The absence of a viable long-term disposal plan for waste led the NGOs to question the wisdom of proceeding with other elements of the new build programme, including GDA. They pointed out that both the Welsh and Scottish governments rejected deep geological disposal as a solution for nuclear waste. They stated that the Environment Agency had been critical of the Viability report on deep repositories prepared by NIREX.
The NGOs disagreed with the Government’s view that design issues considered during GDA need not be subject to scrutiny during the public inquiry process. They considered that the inquisitorial process should be applied to the safety and environmental aspects of reactor design. The regulators’ answer that external scrutiny would be via the IAEA International Regulatory Review Service was not accepted by the NGOs. Overseas models for review were mentioned (France, Sweden) e.g. an external, independent review panel.
1. Spent fuel: Regulators confirmed that storage of spent fuel would be included in GDA consideration, saying they are assuming 60 years before spent fuel becomes disposable. The NGOs maintain that the long term nature of spent fuel/waste storage should be made clear to the public.
2. Justification process: The role of the regulators in BERR’s justification process was not fully understood by NGOs. They also questioned the appropriateness of BERR leading the justification process - as BERR is supporting nuclear power, and does not lead on nuclear waste issues, particularly as waste is a devolved matter.
3. Relationship with BERR: NGOs requested that the way the regulators interface with BERR should be made more transparent, and that the dialogue with BERR should be made public. NGOs had the impression that the regulators were not demonstrating sufficient independence from BERR/Government Policy; they suggested that if regulators were truly independent they would be more challenging e.g. asking questions about the appropriateness of BERR (as the department responsible for energy policy) being the overseer of the Justification process. At present, BERR appears to be both judge and jury.
Issues arising during session (2) - outline of GDA process
4. Generic Design Assessment: Regulators confirmed their decision to adopt a different approach towards assessment (GDA process) was partly due to requests from Government and industry, and partly to overcome perceived inefficiencies in the existing processes.
5. Timeframe: The regulators stated that their priority is to undertake a thorough assessment of designs and they will not aim to meet Government timescales for GDA by ‘cutting corners’ on assessment. They restated their duty to ensure that nuclear installations constructed and operated in the UK achieve high standards of safety, security, environmental and waste management performance.
6. Independence of regulators: NGOs considered that, by virtue of their background and culture, the regulators were ‘too close to industry’. To restore public confidence, some independent expert scrutiny or external peer review of regulators interim decisions and technical assessments would be required (e.g. system adopted in Sweden).
7. Openness/transparency: NGOs were concerned that security would be used to prevent legitimate release of information to the public during GDA - more should be done to explain the approach and what type of information cannot be released. NGOs thought regulators should go further on openness, e.g. publishing all correspondence.
8. Scope of GDA: Regulators confirmed that GDA would cover design issues of construction, operation, de-fuelling and decommissioning of the plants. The NGOs also asked whether and how the SEA framework (Strategic Environmental Assessment) would be used in the GDA. The regulators answered that the maximum conceivable accident and offsite hazards would be covered.
9. Regulators’ findings: Regulators confirmed that at the end of stage 2 of GDA no serious shortfalls had been identified at the level of assessment applied at this stage, but that some gaps had been found in the design submissions from Requesting Parties, particularly with regard to waste issues, and they have been required by the regulators to provide additional information.
10. Disposability of spent fuel: Regulators confirmed that the NDA will undertake disposability assessments, and that this would feed into GDA.
11. CORWM: NGOs were concerned that Government were not taking forward all CORWM recommendations, e.g. need for extensive R and D.
12. Terrorism: NGOs had concerns about risks to plants from terrorism and the likely effectiveness of planned mitigation measures. Any failure to demonstrate that these had been properly considered during GDA would undermine public confidence in the process.
13. GDA programme: Phil Davies, was concerned that NII would be put under pressure to ‘approve’ the three designs by 2011 (in accordance with timescales they had previously announced) irrespective of its findings.
14. New build waste: Waste generation should be regarded as an integral part of the GDA process by the regulators (reference made to a statement from Dave Bennett, EA, that unmanageable legacies should not be created). The short period set aside for GDA would leave many issues relating to a waste repository unresolved, in particular the need for further research, the voluntarism process, and the staged authorisation process. Therefore, it would be impossible for the Environment Agency to be in a position to respond favourably when consulted by NII during the licensing process under the statutory consultation required by the Nuclear Installations Act 1965.
15. Authenticity of the GDA Process: Assuming that the GDA Process is "authentic", (i.e. the outcome of the process is not a foregone conclusion), what is the shortest possible route to discover whether these proposed nuclear power stations are viable or not, in view of the unresolved problems of spent-fuel and waste disposal? The sooner we establish this - should they be ruled out or not - the better in terms of value for money, and whether we need to do something else.
16. Decision on viability: NGOs considered that central Government’s belief that deep disposal of waste is ‘viable’ lacks technical and international backing. The Environment Agency challenged Nirex’s Viability Report of 2006, but is not in a position to finalise a judgement in-house. An extended research programme is necessary to resolve the technical and site-specific issues.
17. Costs of disposal: NGOs believed that the assumptions being made by Government on costs of spent fuel disposal (and decommissioning) and the operators’ ability to generate sufficient funds to cover this were unrealistic. They considered that there would be a hidden subsidy for the industry - with the Government underwriting their costs.
18. Information: NGOs pressed the regulators to be more proactive in the provision of information about the designs to the public.
19. Oversight of regulators: NGOs considered that in order to legitimatise the process there was a need for funding (from the vendors) to allow the commissioning of independent expert review of the regulator’s assessment (again, considered to be both judge and jury).
20. Consultation: NGOs proposed the principle of consultation on the regulators decision-making process under GDA. We should get away from the culture of ‘decide - announce - defend’.
NGOs to give feedback to JPO on how meeting went.
Regulators to prepare a note of meeting. This will be circulated to NGOs for comment and then published on the regulators website
Regulators to respond to the issues raised during the meeting, if they are clearly within their vires.
The regulators will consider requests for technical discussions on specific topics, but their ability to respond to such request will be dependent on resource availability.
A further meeting of NGOs and regulators was suggested (in approximately 12 months time), but the NGOs withheld their support for this until they had an opportunity to review the usefulness of the seminar and the follow up actions.
This note was prepared by the regulators to record the main points of discussion which arose during the above seminar, and to confirm the actions agreed by participants. The note has been commented on by the NGOs, who although they have not accepted that it is a full and accurate record of the meeting, nevertheless have agreed that it would be helpful to publish the note.
In a number of instances statements were made, and whether they are accurate or not, do not necessarily reflect the collective views of the group.
The regulators agreed to respond, as appropriate, to the NGOs on the issues raised by them at the seminar, set out in annex 1.
Questions asked by the NGOs during the seminar:
| Question number | Question raised by NGO |
|---|---|
| 1 | Under section 17, is there provision for a Judicial Inquiry on the Justification process? |
| 2 | What involvement has the nuclear industry had in the justification process? |
| 3 | How far are ethical needs taken into account in justification? |
| 4 | Is the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) competent to take justification issues forward on behalf of the devolved administrations? |
| 5 | Are assumptions in justification case, about what wastes the new power stations are going to produce, valid? |
| 6 | What systems are in place to check the regulators? Should Parliament have a role in this? |
| 7 | Generic Design Assessment (GDA) v. site assessment process - what is different and how can people have their voices heard? |
| 8 | How far will GDA take spent fuel issue into account? |
| 9 | Who is responsible for emergency response systems? |
| 10 | If chance of aircraft hitting reactor is 1 in 1, how does this fit in with the normal risk standards applied to a nuclear accident? |
| 11 | Who in Government is providing a challenge function on terrorism? |
| 12 | How can these issues be discussed in public (trust issue)? |
| 13 | Protection of spent fuel stores - who considers this - NII or OCNS? |
| 14 | What does ‘unmanageable legacy’ mean (quote from Dave Bennett, Environment Agency on waste)? |
| 15 | What criteria are being used to judge disposability? |
| 16 | What impact (on GDA) would late submission of information to the regulators have, and what would happen if one RP falls behind the others? |
| 17 | Waste at new sites - if kept next door - how would it be transported? How safe would that transport be? |
| 18 | How do regulators work with industry to get information into the public domain? |
| 19 | Could a standardised table of data be made available? |
| 20 | The absence of an agreed long-term disposal plan for waste led the NGOs to question the wisdom of proceeding with other elements of the new build programme including GDA |
| 21 | Spent Fuel - Regulators confirmed that storage of spent fuel would be included in GDA consideration. The NGOs felt that the long term nature of spent fuel/waste storage should be made clear to the public. |
| 22 | Justification Process - The role of the regulators in BERR’s justification process was not fully understood by NGOs |
| 23 | Relationship with BERR - NGOs requested that the way the regulators interface with BERR should be made more transparent, and that the dialogue with BERR should be made public. NGOs had the impression that the regulators were not demonstrating sufficient independence from BERR; they suggested that if regulators were truly independent they would be more challenging e.g. asking questions about the appropriateness of BERR being the overseer of the Justification process. At present, BERR appears to be both judge and jury. |
| 24 | Independence of Regulators - NGOs considered that, by virtue of their background and culture, the regulators were ‘too close to industry’. To restore public confidence, some independent expert scrutiny or peer review of regulators assessments would be required e.g. adopt system currently used in Sweden |
| 25 | Oversight of Regulators - NGOs considered that there was a need for funding to be provided to allow the commissioning of independent expert review of the regulator’s assessment |
| 26 | Openness/Transparency - NGOs were concerned that security would be used to prevent legitimate release of information to the public during GDA - more should be done to explain the approach and what type of information cannot be released. NGOs thought regulators should go further on openness, e.g. publishing all correspondence |
| 27 | Terrorism - NGOs had concerns about risks to plants from terrorism and the likely effectiveness of planned mitigation measures. Any failure to demonstrate that these had been properly considered during GDA would undermine public confidence in the process |
| 28 | What risk assumptions are being made about terrorist attack (e.g. chance of aircraft hitting nuclear reactor)? Where does that evidence come from? |
| 29 | CORWM - NGOs were concerned that Government were not taking forward all CORWM recommendations |
| 30 | Costs of disposal: NGOs believed that the assumptions being made by the Government on costs of spent fuel disposal (and decommissioning) and the operators’ ability to generate sufficient funds to cover this were unrealistic. They considered that there would be a hidden subsidy for the industry - with the Government underwriting their costs |
| 31 | The public should be informed about any potential adverse health effects from new nuclear reactors |
| 32 | RPs design information should be rewritten in standard format |
| 33 | A map showing how all new build processes fit together (Regulators and Government) would be helpful |
| 34 | Stakeholders could be represented on the Regulators’ project boards |
| 35 | Why has HSE/NII agreed to the industry request to commence GDA? |
| 36 | What would be the regulators ‘fall-back’ position in the event of a deep repository not being available in 50 years time? |
| 37 | How would the position of the Welsh and Scottish devolved administrations be respected in the GDA process? |
NGO Seminar
Globe and Rose room Rose Court London
12 June 2008
| Name of attendee | Organisation |
|---|---|
| Chris Snaith | Nuclear Directorate - Communications and Stakeholder Engagement |
| Bill Macdonald | Nuclear Directorate - New Build Stakeholder Governance |
| Bob Jennings | Nuclear Directorate - GDA Assessment |
| Andy Cadman | Nuclear Directorate - GDA Assessment |
| Dave Glazbrook | Nuclear Directorate - GDA Assessment |
| Geoff Brown | Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS) |
| Felicity Robinson | Nuclear Directorate - Communications |
| Sue Connor | Nuclear Directorate - Joint Programme Office Manager |
| Chris Owen | Nuclear Directorate - Joint Programme Office |
| Linda Johnson | Nuclear Directorate - Joint Programme Office |
| Mary Tyrer | Nuclear Directorate - Joint Programme Office |
| Shila Patel | HSE Policy |
| Martin Deller | HSE Press Office |
| Ian Streatfield | Environment Agency - Manager of New Build Assessment Team |
| Kath Brown | Environment Agency - Radioactive Substances Regulations - Technical Advisor |
| Dave Bennett | Environment Agency |
| Alan McGoff | Environment Agency - PM only |
| Caroline Richards | Environment Agency - Communications |
| Annabelle Lillycrop | Environment Agency - Stakeholder Engagement |
| James Martin-Jones | Independent Facilitator from 3KQ |
| Jean Mcsorley | Greenpeace - AM only |
| Professor Andrew Blowers | |
| John Fisher | Shut down Sizewell |
| Hugh Richards | Welsh Anti Nuclear Alliance |
| Dr Jill Sutcliffe | Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates |
| Peter Lanyon | Camp for Climate Action |
| Councillor Audrey Doig | Renfrewshire Council |
| Jim Duffy | Stop Hinkley |
| Neil Crumpton | Friends of the Earth - PM only |
| Max Wallis | Wales Anti Nuclear Alliance |
| Peter Wilkinson | Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates |
| Phil Davies | Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates (NWAA) |
| David Lowry | Independent researcher on nuclear policy issues and member of Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates (NWAA) |
