2009 Report to Government on National Research and

It considered this <strong>to</strong> be both an effective and a flexible arrangement (RWMAC,
1994).
3.92 Although RWMAC continued <strong>to</strong> review the DoE (subsequently the Department for
Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR)) radioactive substances
research programme during the 1990s, the committee no longer reviewed UK
radioactive waste management R&D as a whole. RWMAC reviewed the results of
the DETR HLW and Spent Fuel Research Strategy Project. It also considered the
Nirex-proposed work programme following the 1997 RCF decision (RWMAC,
1998). RADREM operated until 1995 but produced no published reports on coordination
of R&D.
3.93 After the RCF decision, the need for strategic co-ordination was recognised by
the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee (Lords, 1998) who
concluded:
“When there is agreement on the national strategy (for long-lived waste
management) a comprehensive research programme should be set out,
linked <strong>to</strong> miles<strong>to</strong>nes in the development of the facilities. The Commission
should be responsible for co-ordinating all UK research on the long-term
management of nuclear waste….”.
Public and Stakeholder Engagement for R&D Programmes
3.94 In the past, there was little opportunity for stakeholders outside the R&D funding
and providing organisations <strong>to</strong> influence UK R&D programmes on radioactive
waste management. For example, NGOs were not invited <strong>to</strong> sit on the various
committees or <strong>to</strong> take part in reviews of research requirements. While some
organisations published all the results of their research (e.g. Nirex, Her Majesty’s
Inspec<strong>to</strong>rate of Pollution), others published very little. On the whole, little
attention was paid <strong>to</strong> providing information about R&D <strong>to</strong> the public in an easily
accessible form.
3.95 CoRWM has found that the situation is much the same <strong>to</strong>day. Most of the fora at
which R&D requirements are discussed are closed and do not issue publicly
available documents. TBuRDs are not publicly available, in full, for most SLCs
and are, in any case, only suitable for use by those with considerable expertise.
Considerable amounts of R&D are viewed as “commercial” and the results are
not published. This is particularly the case for waste conditioning and packaging
research.
3.96 There are signs that the situation will be better for geological disposal research.
For example, there was stakeholder consultation about the proposed RWMD
R&D Strategy (para. 3.18) and RWMD plans <strong>to</strong> consult about the R&D
programme <strong>to</strong> implement the strategy (CoRWM doc. 2677). However, none of
the organisations involved in radioactive waste management R&D routinely
produce documents that explain in accessible language what they think the key
uncertainties are and what R&D is in hand or planned <strong>to</strong> address those
uncertainties. This is despite the importance that the public and stakeholders
attach <strong>to</strong> R&D (CoRWM doc. 2488). There is a specific need for an accessible
summary of what is known about geological disposal and of R&D requirements
CoRWM Document 2543, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber <strong>2009</strong> Page 48 of 151