Westlakes Research Institute, 30 October 2003

The meeting, the last of a series around the country, was convened to gather views on how local people and others affected by the NDA’s activities might be involved in making decisions as openly as genuine issues of confidentiality permitted. The first draft of a framework is hoped to be available by Christmas 2003 and published on the DTI web site at www.dti.gov.uk/nuclearcleanup.

A new Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) has just been set up under the chairmanship of Katherine Bryan (the remaining 12 members, although appointed, have yet to be announced) and charged with considering all relevant issues, to report by the end of 2005 when the NDA is to be set up. A government response is hoped in 2006.

Representatives had been sought from all interested parties, and divided into groups of about ten to consider a series of topics and report all views expressed.

The aim was to gain the views of everyone concerned on options before decisions were made, act on them where appropriate and explain what could or could not be done. The field covered would depend on the issues; those with purely and immediately local implications would require consultation with parish councils, others, for instance related to employment or provision of services, should involve district or county councils and possibly (e.g. in case of long-distance transport) others more distant.

In principle, everything should be available to the public except where it might really compromise national security or breach rights of privacy. Intellectual property rights and points of commercial confidentiality could present special cases, for instance where a contractor had developed a process at his own expense. Means of making the public aware of what was available without creating a deluge of unwanted material would need to be carefully considered; web sites, press coverage and a shop window in Whitehaven were suggested. Churches could also provide a channel.

Topics to be covered included the work programme, estimated future requirements for skills and supporting services, and provisions to ensure that safe working practices were actually employed.

Most participants seemed to think that the existing Liaison Committees should be the basis for development, though a few suggested that a new start might be preferable. All agreed that the existing representation on the Committees should be broadened, and dissemination of reports on its activities needed improvement.

Obstacles included ignorance, inconvenient timing of meetings, conflicting demands on time, failures of comprehension between NDA and enquirers, and in one instance the reluctance of a CORE representative to participate, apparently for fear of compromising his own position. Absolute and transparent honesty would be need to dispel the distrust and antagonism engendered by the dealings of NIREX with the local community. Where attendance at meetings involved significant out-of-pocket expenses, they should be reimbursed; payment for time spent was generally felt to be inappropriate, except perhaps for heavily-involved individuals or for losses due to absence from paid employment.

Conclusion

This was a very free and open discussion, with remarkably similar collections of views generated independently by the eight discussion groups.

Peter D. Wilson

30/10/03