Criteria Proposals Group - Revision history

Melissa Jones: /* Criteria to exclude as little as possible */

2014-03-19T23:26:10Z

Criteria to exclude as little as possible

Kyle McCallum: badge added

2009-03-12T20:07:02Z

badge added

Kyle McCallum: footnote alterations

2009-03-05T15:40:08Z

footnote alterations

Kyle McCallum: footnote alterations

2009-03-05T15:39:11Z

footnote alterations

Kyle McCallum at 15:34, 5 March 2009

2009-03-05T15:34:36Z

Kyle McCallum at 15:30, 5 March 2009

2009-03-05T15:30:39Z

Kyle McCallum at 15:28, 5 March 2009

2009-03-05T15:28:38Z

Kyle McCallum at 14:48, 5 March 2009

2009-03-05T14:48:27Z

Kyle McCallum: New page: ==Background== In October 2006 the UK Government produced its response [http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/waste/pdf/corwm-govresponse.pdf Response to the report and r...

2009-03-05T14:48:02Z

New page: ==Background== In October 2006 the UK Government produced its response <ref>[http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/waste/pdf/corwm-govresponse.pdf Response to the report and r...

New page

==Background==

In October 2006 the UK Government produced its response <ref>[http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/waste/pdf/corwm-govresponse.pdf Response to the report and recommendations from the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management], DEFRA et al, October 2006.</ref> to a report and recommendations from the [[Committee on Radioactive Waste Management]] (CoRWM). {{ref|CoRWM1}} CoRWM had recommended that “geological disposal” was currently the best way of dealing with the UK’s (existing) higher level nuclear wastes, and that this should be implemented by developing a partnership arrangement, linked to ‘benefit packages’, with local municipalities as a means of finding a site. In its response, the Government announced its intention to explore this partnership or ‘voluntarist’ approach.

After a consultation {{ref|DEFRA2}} and the publication of a White Paper {{ref|DEFRA3}} on the framework for implementing “geological disposal”, the Government issued an invitation to communities to express an interest in taking part in the process of finding a site. So, one of the first steps was the identification of criteria that would enable those parts of the UK which are unsuitable for a nuclear waste dump to be eliminated, or screened out, from further consideration.

The Government will ask the British Geological Survey {{ref|BGS}} to apply these criteria to any areas which make an initial expression of interest so that places which are obviously unsuitable can be eliminated thus avoiding unnecessary work.

==Criteria Proposals Group==

Two expert groups were established in 2007 on the basis of recommendations from the [[Royal Society]], the [[Geological Society]], the [[Royal Academy of Engineering]] and DEFRA’s Chief Scientific Advisor, [[Professor Sir Howard Dalton]].

The Criteria Proposals Group (CPG) was set up to come up with criteria for "screening-out" areas unlikely to be suitable for geological disposal. A Criteria Review Panel (CRP) was also established to peer review the proposed criteria and ensure they are workable.

The CPG was asked to propose criteria for the initial sub-surface screening of areas or sites which are suggested as potential sites. The issue of rising sea levels as a result of global warming was highlighted by the Government as relevant. CPG weren’t expected to look at surface criteria such as socio-economic impacts or transport links – the Government said it expected these criteria to be covered through the processes by which communities decide whether or not to volunteer, and also in the safety case and environmental impact assessments that will be required. {{ref|DEFRA4}}

The two groups were asked to produce a draft report which could then be discussed at a workshop held in Reading on 14th May 2007. A joint CPG/CRP report was then produced. {{ref|DEFRA5}} The draft criteria were then put into the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS): A framework for implementing geological disposal consultation document published in June 2007. {{ref|DEFRA6}}

After the MRWS consultation closed, the Chairs of the two groups (CRP & CRP) Professor Peter Styles and Professor Howard Wheater, were asked to review their advice in light of the responses. They concluded that the criteria they recommended should stand. {{ref|DEFRA7}} So the criteria used in the consultation document are the same as used in the final White Paper. {{ref|DEFRA8}}

==Criteria to exclude as little as possible==

CoRWM was told by geologists during its work that around 30% of the UK possessed geology suitable for deep disposal {{ref|NDA}} Therefore, some surprise was expressed when the CPG/CRP report ruled out virtually no geological formation or sub-surface conditions. The work carried out by the CPG only identified a few non-negotiable features, which would rule out an area, such as fossil fuel deposits or the presence of aquifers. The need to match up a willing community with suitable geology now appears to mean that we have moved from looking for 'ideal geology' to simply 'adequate geology'. {{ref|pers}} This appears to confirm the worst fears of David Smythe, Professor of geophysics at Glasgow University, that Ministers are moving towards choosing a site on the basis of popular consent rather than scientific evidence. {{ref|grun}}

==Criteria Proposals Group (CPG)==
'''Chair''': Professor Peter Styles Professor of Applied and Environmental
Geophysics, Keele University; Former President of the Geological Society

'''Members'''
Professor Neil Chapman University of Sheffield; geologist in private consultancy;

Dr Adrian Bath Hydrogeologist in private consultancy, formerly of the British Geological Survey

Professor Rae Mackay Chair in Hydrogeology, University of Birmingham; formerly of Macdonald and Partners, Consulting Civil Engineers

Professor Rob Knipe Structural geologist, University of Leeds

Dr Richard P Shaw British Geological Survey

Professor Lynda Warren Former Professor of Environmental Law, University of Wales Aberystwyth; member of CoRWM

Professor John Hudson Department of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Imperial College;

Dr Alan Hooper Head of Science, UK Nirex Ltd

==Criteria Review Panel (CRP)==
'''Chair''': Professor Howard Wheater Professor of Hydrology, Imperial College London

'''Members'''
Professor Steve Sparks Director of the Centre for Environmental and Geophysical Flows, University of Bristol;

Professor John Mather Lyell Professor of Geology, Royal Holloway College (Retired)

Dr John Andersson Private consultant in Sweden; advisor to the Swedish Nuclear Waste Disposal organization (SKB) on scientific selection criteria

Dr Malcolm Wakerley Research Manager, RAS Division, Defra

Dr Andy Baker Head of the Nuclear Waste Assessment Team, Environment Agency

==References==

#{{note|DEFRA1}}
#{{note|CoRWM1}} [http://www.corwm.org.uk/Pages/Current%20Publications/700%20-%20CoRWM%20July%202006%20Recommendations%20to%20Government.pdf Managing our Radioactive Waste Safely: CoRWM's recommendations to Government], CoRWM, July 2006.
#{{note|DEFRA2}} [http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/radwaste-framework/consultation.pdf Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal, Consultation], DEFRA, 25th June 2007.
#{{note|DEFRA3}}[http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/mrws/pdf/white-paper-final.pdf Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal], DEFRA, BERR, Devolved Administrations for Wales and Northern Ireland, June 2008
#{{note|BGS}} British Geological Survey [http://www.bgs.ac.uk/ website] accessed September 2008.
#{{note|DEFRA4}} [http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/waste/hilw/documents/terms-of-reference-cpg-crp.pdf Criteria Proposals Group (CPG) and Criteria Review Panel (CRP): Terms of Reference].
#{{note|DEFRA5}} Minutes of CPG and CRP meetings are available on the [http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/waste/hilw/disposal.htm Defra website]
#{{note|DEFRA6}} [http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/radwaste-framework/consultation.pdf Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal, Consultation], DEFRA, 25th June 2007.
#{{note|DEFRA7}} Joint statement by Professor Peter Styles and Professor Howard Wheater. [http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/waste/hilw/documents/cpg-crp-jointstatement-080703.pdf Initial screening out of areas unlikely to be suitable for the geological disposal of higher activity radioactive waste].
#{{note|DEFRA8}}[http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/mrws/pdf/white-paper-final.pdf Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal], DEFRA, BERR, Devolved Administrations for Wales and Northern Ireland, June 2008
#{{note|NDA}} [http://www.nda.gov.uk/documents/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&pageid=10878 A note by the British Geological Survey and Nirex on the suitability of UK geology for siting a repository for radioactive waste]. UK Nirex Ltd and British Geological Survey, March 2006.
#{{note|pers}} Personal Communication with former CoRWM member.
#{{note|grun}} Terry Macalister, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/nov/02/nuclearindustry.greenpolitics Sellafield 'not fit' for nuclear waste disposal'], ''Guardian'' 2nd Nov 2007

[[Category:Pro-nuclear organisations]]
[[Category:Pro-nuclear organisations in the UK]]

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 ==Criteria to exclude as little as possible==
-CoRWM was told by geologists during its work that around 30% of the UK possessed geology suitable for deep disposal <ref>[http://www.nda.gov.uk/documents/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&pageid=10878 A note by the British Geological Survey and Nirex on the suitability of UK geology for siting a repository for radioactive waste]. UK Nirex Ltd and British Geological Survey, March 2006. </ref> Therefore, some surprise was expressed when the CPG/CRP report ruled out virtually no geological formation or sub-surface conditions. The work carried out by the CPG only identified a few non-negotiable features, which would rule out an area, such as fossil fuel deposits or the presence of aquifers. The need to match up a willing community with suitable geology now appears to mean that we have moved from looking for 'ideal geology' to simply 'adequate geology'. <ref>Personal Communication with former CoRWM member.</ref> This appears to confirm the worst fears of David Smythe, Professor of geophysics at Glasgow University, that Ministers are moving towards choosing a site on the basis of popular consent rather than scientific evidence. <ref>Terry Macalister, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/nov/02/nuclearindustry.greenpolitics Sellafield 'not fit' for nuclear waste disposal'], ''Guardian'' 2 November, 2007. </ref>
+CoRWM was told by geologists during its work that around 30% of the UK possessed geology suitable for deep disposal <ref>[http://www.nda.gov.uk/documents/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&pageid=10878 A note by the British Geological Survey and Nirex on the suitability of UK geology for siting a repository for radioactive waste]. UK Nirex Ltd and British Geological Survey, March 2006. </ref> Therefore, some surprise was expressed when the CPG/CRP report ruled out virtually no geological formation or sub-surface conditions. The work carried out by the CPG only identified a few non-negotiable features, which would rule out an area, such as fossil fuel deposits or the presence of aquifers. The need to match up a willing community with suitable geology now appears to mean that we have moved from looking for 'ideal geology' to simply 'adequate geology'. <ref>Personal Communication with former CoRWM member.</ref> This appears to confirm the worst fears of [[David Smythe]], Professor of geophysics at Glasgow University, that Ministers are moving towards choosing a site on the basis of popular consent rather than scientific evidence. <ref>Terry Macalister, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/nov/02/nuclearindustry.greenpolitics Sellafield 'not fit' for nuclear waste disposal'], ''Guardian'' 2 November, 2007. </ref>
 ==Criteria Proposals Group (CPG)==

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:07, 12 March 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	{{Template:NuclearSpin}}
	==Background==		==Background==

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:48, 5 March 2009
Line 59:		Line 59:

	==References==		==References==
		+	<references/>

	#{{note\|DEFRA1}}		#{{note\|DEFRA1}}

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 ==References==
 <references/>
 [[Category:Pro-nuclear organisations]]
-[[Category:Pro-nuclear organisations in the UK]]
+[[Category:Nuclear Spin]]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 The two groups were asked to produce a draft report which could then be discussed at a workshop held in Reading on 14th May 2007. A joint CPG/CRP report was then produced. <ref>Minutes of CPG and CRP meetings are available on the [http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/waste/hilw/disposal.htm Defra website] </ref> The draft criteria were then put into the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS): A framework for implementing geological disposal consultation document published in June 2007. <ref>[http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/radwaste-framework/consultation.pdf Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal, Consultation], DEFRA, 25th June 2007. </ref>
-After the MRWS consultation closed, the Chairs of the two groups (CRP & CRP) Professor Peter Styles and Professor Howard Wheater, were asked to review their advice in light of the responses. They concluded that the criteria they recommended should stand. {{ref|DEFRA7}} So the criteria used in the consultation document are the same as used in the final White Paper. {{ref|DEFRA8}}
+After the MRWS consultation closed, the Chairs of the two groups (CRP & CRP) Professor Peter Styles and Professor Howard Wheater, were asked to review their advice in light of the responses. They concluded that the criteria they recommended should stand. <ref>Joint statement by Professor Peter Styles and Professor Howard Wheater. [http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/waste/hilw/documents/cpg-crp-jointstatement-080703.pdf Initial screening out of areas unlikely to be suitable for the geological disposal of higher activity radioactive waste]. </ref> So the criteria used in the consultation document are the same as used in the final White Paper. <ref>[http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/mrws/pdf/white-paper-final.pdf Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal], DEFRA, BERR, Devolved Administrations for Wales and Northern Ireland, June 2008.</ref>
 ==Criteria to exclude as little as possible==
-CoRWM was told by geologists during its work that around 30% of the UK possessed geology suitable for deep disposal {{ref|NDA}} Therefore, some surprise was expressed when the CPG/CRP report ruled out virtually no geological formation or sub-surface conditions. The work carried out by the CPG only identified a few non-negotiable features, which would rule out an area, such as fossil fuel deposits or the presence of aquifers. The need to match up a willing community with suitable geology now appears to mean that we have moved from looking for 'ideal geology' to simply 'adequate geology'. {{ref|pers}} This appears to confirm the worst fears of David Smythe, Professor of geophysics at Glasgow University, that Ministers are moving towards choosing a site on the basis of popular consent rather than scientific evidence. {{ref|grun}}
+CoRWM was told by geologists during its work that around 30% of the UK possessed geology suitable for deep disposal <ref>[http://www.nda.gov.uk/documents/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&pageid=10878 A note by the British Geological Survey and Nirex on the suitability of UK geology for siting a repository for radioactive waste]. UK Nirex Ltd and British Geological Survey, March 2006. </ref> Therefore, some surprise was expressed when the CPG/CRP report ruled out virtually no geological formation or sub-surface conditions. The work carried out by the CPG only identified a few non-negotiable features, which would rule out an area, such as fossil fuel deposits or the presence of aquifers. The need to match up a willing community with suitable geology now appears to mean that we have moved from looking for 'ideal geology' to simply 'adequate geology'. <ref>Personal Communication with former CoRWM member.</ref> This appears to confirm the worst fears of David Smythe, Professor of geophysics at Glasgow University, that Ministers are moving towards choosing a site on the basis of popular consent rather than scientific evidence. <ref>Terry Macalister, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/nov/02/nuclearindustry.greenpolitics Sellafield 'not fit' for nuclear waste disposal'], ''Guardian'' 2 November, 2007. </ref>
 ==Criteria Proposals Group (CPG)==
@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 #{{note|DEFRA5}}
 #{{note|DEFRA6}}
-#{{note|DEFRA7}} Joint statement by Professor Peter Styles and Professor Howard Wheater. [http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/waste/hilw/documents/cpg-crp-jointstatement-080703.pdf Initial screening out of areas unlikely to be suitable for the geological disposal of higher activity radioactive waste].
+#{{note|DEFRA7}}
-#{{note|DEFRA8}}[http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/mrws/pdf/white-paper-final.pdf Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal], DEFRA, BERR, Devolved Administrations for Wales and Northern Ireland, June 2008
+#{{note|DEFRA8}}
-#{{note|NDA}} [http://www.nda.gov.uk/documents/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&pageid=10878 A note by the British Geological Survey and Nirex on the suitability of UK geology for siting a repository for radioactive waste]. UK Nirex Ltd and British Geological Survey, March 2006.
+#{{note|NDA}}
-#{{note|pers}} Personal Communication with former CoRWM member.
+#{{note|pers}}
-#{{note|grun}} Terry Macalister, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/nov/02/nuclearindustry.greenpolitics Sellafield 'not fit' for nuclear waste disposal'], ''Guardian'' 2nd Nov 2007
+#{{note|grun}}
 [[Category:Pro-nuclear organisations]]
 [[Category:Pro-nuclear organisations in the UK]]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 In October 2006 the UK Government produced its response <ref>[http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/waste/pdf/corwm-govresponse.pdf Response to the report and recommendations from the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management], DEFRA et al, October 2006.</ref> to a report and recommendations from the [[Committee on Radioactive Waste Management]] (CoRWM). <ref>[http://www.corwm.org.uk/Pages/Current%20Publications/700%20-%20CoRWM%20July%202006%20Recommendations%20to%20Government.pdf Managing our Radioactive Waste Safely: CoRWM's recommendations to Government], CoRWM, July 2006. </ref> CoRWM had recommended that “geological disposal” was currently the best way of dealing with the UK’s (existing) higher level nuclear wastes, and that this should be implemented by developing a partnership arrangement, linked to ‘benefit packages’, with local municipalities as a means of finding a site. In its response, the Government announced its intention to explore this partnership or ‘voluntarist’ approach.
-After a consultation <ref>[http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/radwaste-framework/consultation.pdf Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal, Consultation], DEFRA, 25th June 2007. </ref> and the publication of a White Paper {{ref|DEFRA3}} on the framework for implementing “geological disposal”, the Government issued an invitation to communities to express an interest in taking part in the process of finding a site. So, one of the first steps was the identification of criteria that would enable those parts of the UK which are unsuitable for a nuclear waste dump to be eliminated, or screened out, from further consideration.
+After a consultation <ref>[http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/radwaste-framework/consultation.pdf Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal, Consultation], DEFRA, 25th June 2007. </ref> and the publication of a White Paper <ref>[http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/mrws/pdf/white-paper-final.pdf Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal], DEFRA, BERR, Devolved Administrations for Wales and Northern Ireland, June 2008.</ref> on the framework for implementing “geological disposal”, the Government issued an invitation to communities to express an interest in taking part in the process of finding a site. So, one of the first steps was the identification of criteria that would enable those parts of the UK which are unsuitable for a nuclear waste dump to be eliminated, or screened out, from further consideration.
-The Government will ask the British Geological Survey {{ref|BGS}} to apply these criteria to any areas which make an initial expression of interest so that places which are obviously unsuitable can be eliminated thus avoiding unnecessary work.
+The Government will ask the British Geological Survey <ref>British Geological Survey [http://www.bgs.ac.uk/ website] accessed September 2008. </ref> to apply these criteria to any areas which make an initial expression of interest so that places which are obviously unsuitable can be eliminated thus avoiding unnecessary work.
 ==Criteria Proposals Group==
@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 The Criteria Proposals Group (CPG) was set up to come up with criteria for "screening-out" areas unlikely to be suitable for geological disposal. A Criteria Review Panel (CRP) was also established to peer review the proposed criteria and ensure they are workable.
-The CPG was asked to propose criteria for the initial sub-surface screening of areas or sites which are suggested as potential sites. The issue of rising sea levels as a result of global warming was highlighted by the Government as relevant. CPG weren’t expected to look at surface criteria such as socio-economic impacts or transport links – the Government said it expected these criteria to be covered through the processes by which communities decide whether or not to volunteer, and also in the safety case and environmental impact assessments that will be required. {{ref|DEFRA4}}
+The CPG was asked to propose criteria for the initial sub-surface screening of areas or sites which are suggested as potential sites. The issue of rising sea levels as a result of global warming was highlighted by the Government as relevant. CPG weren’t expected to look at surface criteria such as socio-economic impacts or transport links – the Government said it expected these criteria to be covered through the processes by which communities decide whether or not to volunteer, and also in the safety case and environmental impact assessments that will be required. <ref>[http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/waste/hilw/documents/terms-of-reference-cpg-crp.pdf Criteria Proposals Group (CPG) and Criteria Review Panel (CRP): Terms of Reference]. </ref>
-The two groups were asked to produce a draft report which could then be discussed at a workshop held in Reading on 14th May 2007. A joint CPG/CRP report was then produced. {{ref|DEFRA5}} The draft criteria were then put into the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS): A framework for implementing geological disposal consultation document published in June 2007. {{ref|DEFRA6}}
+The two groups were asked to produce a draft report which could then be discussed at a workshop held in Reading on 14th May 2007. A joint CPG/CRP report was then produced. <ref>Minutes of CPG and CRP meetings are available on the [http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/waste/hilw/disposal.htm Defra website] </ref> The draft criteria were then put into the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS): A framework for implementing geological disposal consultation document published in June 2007. <ref>[http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/radwaste-framework/consultation.pdf Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal, Consultation], DEFRA, 25th June 2007. </ref>
 After the MRWS consultation closed, the Chairs of the two groups (CRP & CRP) Professor Peter Styles and Professor Howard Wheater, were asked to review their advice in light of the responses. They concluded that the criteria they recommended should stand. {{ref|DEFRA7}} So the criteria used in the consultation document are the same as used in the final White Paper. {{ref|DEFRA8}}
@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 #{{note|CoRWM1}}
 #{{note|DEFRA2}}
-#{{note|DEFRA3}}[http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/mrws/pdf/white-paper-final.pdf Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal], DEFRA, BERR, Devolved Administrations for Wales and Northern Ireland, June 2008.
+#{{note|DEFRA3}}
-#{{note|BGS}} British Geological Survey [http://www.bgs.ac.uk/ website] accessed September 2008.
+#{{note|BGS}}
-#{{note|DEFRA4}} [http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/waste/hilw/documents/terms-of-reference-cpg-crp.pdf Criteria Proposals Group (CPG) and Criteria Review Panel (CRP): Terms of Reference].
+#{{note|DEFRA4}}
-#{{note|DEFRA5}} Minutes of CPG and CRP meetings are available on the [http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/waste/hilw/disposal.htm Defra website]
+#{{note|DEFRA5}}
-#{{note|DEFRA6}} [http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/radwaste-framework/consultation.pdf Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal, Consultation], DEFRA, 25th June 2007.
+#{{note|DEFRA6}}
 #{{note|DEFRA7}} Joint statement by Professor Peter Styles and Professor Howard Wheater. [http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/waste/hilw/documents/cpg-crp-jointstatement-080703.pdf Initial screening out of areas unlikely to be suitable for the geological disposal of higher activity radioactive waste].
 #{{note|DEFRA8}}[http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/mrws/pdf/white-paper-final.pdf Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal], DEFRA, BERR, Devolved Administrations for Wales and Northern Ireland, June 2008

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ==Background==
-In October 2006 the UK Government produced its response <ref>[http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/waste/pdf/corwm-govresponse.pdf Response to the report and recommendations from the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management], DEFRA et al, October 2006.</ref> to a report and recommendations from the [[Committee on Radioactive Waste Management]] (CoRWM). {{ref|CoRWM1}} CoRWM had recommended that “geological disposal” was currently the best way of dealing with the UK’s (existing) higher level nuclear wastes, and that this should be implemented by developing a partnership arrangement, linked to ‘benefit packages’, with local municipalities as a means of finding a site. In its response, the Government announced its intention to explore this partnership or ‘voluntarist’ approach.
+In October 2006 the UK Government produced its response <ref>[http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/waste/pdf/corwm-govresponse.pdf Response to the report and recommendations from the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management], DEFRA et al, October 2006.</ref> to a report and recommendations from the [[Committee on Radioactive Waste Management]] (CoRWM). <ref>[http://www.corwm.org.uk/Pages/Current%20Publications/700%20-%20CoRWM%20July%202006%20Recommendations%20to%20Government.pdf Managing our Radioactive Waste Safely: CoRWM's recommendations to Government], CoRWM, July 2006. </ref> CoRWM had recommended that “geological disposal” was currently the best way of dealing with the UK’s (existing) higher level nuclear wastes, and that this should be implemented by developing a partnership arrangement, linked to ‘benefit packages’, with local municipalities as a means of finding a site. In its response, the Government announced its intention to explore this partnership or ‘voluntarist’ approach.
 After a consultation {{ref|DEFRA2}} and the publication of a White Paper {{ref|DEFRA3}} on the framework for implementing “geological disposal”, the Government issued an invitation to communities to express an interest in taking part in the process of finding a site. So, one of the first steps was the identification of criteria that would enable those parts of the UK which are unsuitable for a nuclear waste dump to be eliminated, or screened out, from further consideration.
@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 #{{note|DEFRA1}}
-#{{note|CoRWM1}} [http://www.corwm.org.uk/Pages/Current%20Publications/700%20-%20CoRWM%20July%202006%20Recommendations%20to%20Government.pdf Managing our Radioactive Waste Safely: CoRWM's recommendations to Government], CoRWM, July 2006.
+#{{note|CoRWM1}}
 #{{note|DEFRA2}} [http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/radwaste-framework/consultation.pdf Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal, Consultation], DEFRA, 25th June 2007.
 #{{note|DEFRA3}}[http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/mrws/pdf/white-paper-final.pdf Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal], DEFRA, BERR, Devolved Administrations for Wales and Northern Ireland, June 2008