PCR Annexes A-C Submarine Dismantling Project (SDP) Post-Consultation Report on the Site for Interim Storage of Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Annexes A to J July 2015 Contents A Consultation Press Release B Consultation Document Map C Exhibition Adverts D Local Workshop Reports E National Workshop Reports F Submissions from Organisations and Elected Representatives G Feedback Forms H Emails and Letters I Advisory Subgroup Reports J Statistical Breakdown Annex A: ISS Consultation Press Release PRESS RELEASE 134/2014 16 October 2014 MoD confirms sites for submarine dismantling consultations Five UK nuclear facilities have been confirmed as potential sites to store waste from decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines. A public consultation process will now help to determine which site is selected. The sites, which already hold radioactive materials, are either owned by MOD, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) or industry. They are: • the Atomic Weapons Establishment sites at Aldermaston and Burghfield in Berkshire which are owned by MOD and run by AWE plc; • Sellafield in west Cumbria, owned by the NDA; • Chapelcross in Dumfriesshire, owned by the NDA; • Capenhurst in Cheshire, which is run by Capenhurst Nuclear Services. Philip Dunne MP, Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology: “When the submarines in the Royal Navy fleet reach the end of their lives we need to dispose of them in a way that is safe, secure and environmentally sound. “This open and transparent public consultation process provides the opportunity to work closely with local communities near to potential sites to listen carefully to their views with the aim of delivering a solution that achieves these objectives. “We value the views of those who have something to say about the Submarine Dismantling Project. All of them will be considered properly as part of our decision-making process. After consultation we will publish a report on our findings and after we have selected a site, we will explain why we reached that decision.” The Submarine Dismantling Project will oversee the disposal of 27 Royal Navy nuclear submarines that are due to have left Naval service by the mid 2030s and be defuelled, including 19 submarines that have already left service and are stored afloat at Rosyth and Devonport. The submarines can only be completely dismantled once reactor components, which are categorised as radioactive waste, have been removed. The initial dismantling process will support up to 60 skilled jobs. The sites named today are the same as those announced by the MoD on a provisional shortlist on 13 February 2014. Public consultations will start on 14 November 2014 and run until 20 February 2015. There will be a series of exhibitions and workshops close to all five sites, plus two national workshops. The site chosen will be used for interim storage of reactor components until after 2040, when the UK Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) is planned to come into operation. ENDS Notes to Editors: • For further information please visit: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/submarine-dismantling-project-interim- storage-of-intermediate-level-radioactive-waste • Or contact Hannah Carolin in the MoD Press Office on 02072 187 907 Consultation dates: Aldermaston: 17th November: AWE Recreational Society, West Gate, Plantation Road, Aldermaston RG7 4PR. 22nd November; 23rd January: Tadley Community Centre, Newchurch Road, Tadley RG26 4HN. Burghfield: 18th November: Village Hall, Recreation Road, Burghfield Common, Reading RG7 3EN 20th November; 22nd January: Community Sports Association, James Lane, Burghfield, Reading RG30 3RS. Chapelcross: 28th and 29th November; 15th January: Victoria Halls Complex, Downie's Wynd, Annan DG12 6EE. Capenhurst: 9th and 10th December; 20th January: Macdonald Craxton Wood Hotel, Parkgate Road, Ledsham, Chester CH66 9PB. 11th December: The Village Hall, Capenhurst Lane, Capenhurst, Chester CH1 6HE. Sellafield: 17th December; 28th January: Cleator Moor Civic Hall and Masonic Centre, The Square, Cleator Moor CA25 5AU. 18th December; 27th January: The Beacon Museum, West Strand, Whitehaven CA28 7LY. Birmingham: 6th January 2015: The ICC Birmingham, Broad Street, Birmingham B1 2EA. Glasgow: 8th January 2015: Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre, Exhibition Way, Glasgow G3 8YW. Annex B: Consultation Document Map Annex C: Exhibition Adverts Advertisement published in Newbury Weekly News, 30th October 2014. Annex D: Local Workshop Reports MOD SDP PSE Local Workshop Notes Tadley Community Centre 22 November 2014, 11.30am MOD representatives present: Linda Eadie, Mark Ball, Stuart Patten Member of the public present: 8 The following notes set out the main questions and comments made, followed by responses and further comments made on the subjects raised. You are going to design a site in 2016 – what happens if you don’t then get planning permission, as local authorities change and what they say now may be different from what they think later. You are probably aware that we have a development protection zone (DPZ) of 3km around the site where houses cannot be developed. We are also on the border of West Berks and Basingstoke & Deane councils. A lot of residents have a concern around this. Will there be any impact on the ONR DPZ? Many had hoped that this would be relaxed in the coming years. (Our proposed building is within the licensed site.) (EA representative commented: Aware of all the constraints. This does not add to the risk on site. Simply, there is nothing that can be released from this, to increase or decrease the risk.) We would like to hear that from the regulator, the ONR. ONR need to be asked the impact on the DPZ. Site operator has a 25-year contract. Are you going to consider this, given it is a 100- year project. (We will be considering this for all sites.) Flooding is a concern, particularly at Burghfield. Will that make a difference in the assessments, and for the location of the store? How long have you known that you were going to have to get rid of the RPVs at some stage? Presumably since the subs were built. Can’t understand why you haven’t got a geological site in place now so they can go straight to the GDF. Can’t see any real benefit to the local communities at any of the sites. Why would somebody want this in their area? Is there anything at all that would benefit the residents? (Construction jobs mentioned.) Are we any different to any other country in the world in this, and if so why? Russia has many submarines. (EA representative – This solution is supported by regulators and it is an end-to-end solution.) You said these things are not dangerous, so why does it need to be put into a GDF and with the transport that this involves? (Levels of radioactivity discussed). Could you quantify it, as you said you could stand next to it without much of an impact. What is the dose rate like compared to having an x-ray, say? (Fact sheet available; half- lives explained.) It seems that as they are floating submarines they could be transported by sea. Why aren’t we looking at transporting these by sea to the storage facility? You mentioned the potential to mobilise contaminants when you are building. Is there more risk with sites as they have got this sort of work going on anyway? (EA: History of the sites means there is contamination in the ground at some of the sites. So need to look at the potential for disruption on the particular site and that this is minimised.) Has anything been done to assess this at the current stage? (No, but report has highlighted this as an area for consideration.) You mentioned possible shared storage. I thought you were only looking at one site: can you explain this? (Not two sites, but looking at whether current developments could be used to store this in addition.) Seems logical that the ones in the south go to a store in the south, and the ones up north stay up north. (Cost of store is the main thing.) An observation, as we have identified there will be some jobs benefit in build but not a lot of benefit to local areas. There should be some level of contribution to the local people in terms of infrastructure or local facilities, as this would be fair. The majority of people affected by this will actually be in Hampshire, not in West Berks, so any S106 contribution should be split between the two and not kept within West Berks. So the benefit should come to both sides of the border. There won’t be much S106 for this development though, would there? (As not much impact from the development then there would not be much of a S106 contribution.) The issue for Tadley is that as there cannot be any development due to the DPZ, then the area cannot get any S106 contributions. Please give us some benefit. Is there any plan to give some community benefits, so that sites may actually compete to get it? (Interesting point regarding the DPZ issue.) In this area the site has been around for a long time and we have grown substantially due to this and yet we have not had the contributions to develop the infrastructure and this is what local residents are concerned about. Residents are in the main quite apathetic and not really engaged. People have become more and more accepting of AWE and the jobs it provides, but there have been recent concerns about safety issues, but local liaison committees do not get many concerns raised. I thought there would be lots of people attending this so it will be interesting what the level of interest is. Will the site go to other uses in the future, such as the laser facility, or will these things go to other sites? Will an ILW store affect this, is a concern.