- Front End Consultation
- CIOP Consultation
- Engagement Liaison Group
- SDP Advisory Group
- SDP Steering Group
The importance of public consultation on this issue is reflected by the fact that three public consultations will take place before major decisions are made.
Public acceptability is particularly important and engagement will take place with local residents and interested parties on a local, regional and national level.
To date, two of the three public consultations have been undertaken. The first two were conducted by the Centre for the Study of Environmental Change at Lancaster University. The third consultation will be undertaken by Green Issues Communications with evidence provided by the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).
Click on list to expand areas.
 |
||
 |
Concept Phase Report - Issue 1 26 May 1999 - Annex A - G | 221.4KB |
| Concept Phase Report - Issue 1 26 May 1999 - Annex H - I | 105.7KB | |
| Concept Phase Report - Issue 1 26 May 1999 | 403.8KB | |
| Environmental Impact Anaylsis - HMS Renown | 128KB | |
|
ISOLUS Front End Consultation - Final Report - September 2001 |
1.0MB | |
| ISOLUS Press Release 11 May 2000 | 76.9KB | |
| ISOLUS Press Release 11 September 2003 | 94.5KB | |
| ISOLUS Press Release 12 April 2001 | 67.9KB | |
| ISOLUS Press Release 15 November 2000 | 69.2KB | |
| ISOLUS Press Release 05 November 2001 | 52.3KB | |
| ISOLUS Press Release 09 November 2001 | 75.3KB | |
| ISOLUS Press Release August 2001 | 81KB | |
|
MOD response to Consultation on ISOLUS Outline Proposals Final Report Feb 05 |
65KB | |
|
MoD Response to Lancaster University’s Final Report April 2002 |
446KB | |
|
ISOLUS Consultation on Outline Proposals - Final Report April, 2004 |
1.4MB | |
|
ISOLUS Ministerial statement on MoD response - 09 Feb 2005 |
8.1KB | |
| ISOLUS Ministerial Statement on Outcome of Coastal Sites Study 21 July 2004 | 12.5KB | |
| ISOLUS MOD Costal Site Evaluation Report - January 2005 | 221.4KB |
The Front End Consultation took place in 2002. This consultation sought to identify what members of the public and other key stakeholders considered should be taken into account when developing a solution. The final report came up with 65 recommendations. To understand all of the recommendations the full report can be found as a link below.
The second stage of consultation ran from 12th September 2003 to 24th December 2003, on the ISOLUS Outline Proposals (CIOP) considered the proposals put forward by four industry groups to meet the ISOLUS requirement. These formed the subject of the CIOP and at the time there was significant interest raised. The report was published in 2004 and can be found below. The response from the MOD was published in the Minister (Defence Procurement) statement. This followed extensive consultation with a number of Government Departments and Devolved Administrations in February 2005. This response can be found as a link below. 50 recommendations were made as part of this report.
A key recommendation was that the project should be aligned with the process of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM).
CoRWM was set up by the Government in November 2003 as an independent body to recommend a strategy for the long term management of UK higher activity solid radioactive waste.
The third consultation is planned for 2011. As the consultation plan is updated, further information will be available on the website. This programme will involve public exhibitions, workshops and events with local stakeholders around the United Kingdom.
If you are interested in finding out more as the consultation progresses please fill in your contact details and send them to us via the link below on the website and we shall make sure that you are kept up-to-date.
Two key stakeholder groups have been created to progress the project and to provide vehicles for ongoing stakeholder management – the MOD SDP Steering Group (SDP SG) and the SDP Advisory Group ( SDP AG). These groups are made up of representatives from the MOD, other Government Departments, Devolved Administrations, local government, the nuclear industry, the regulators, academics, independent specialists, a member of the public and non-governmental organisations with an interest in submarine disposal.
Members of the public are welcome to attend the SDP AG meetings which are held at different venues around the country. The agenda and location are published on the website. If you would like to be kept up-to-date with the dates and venues of the SDP AG meeting please contact us and we will make sure you are informed.
The scope of the Submarine Dismantling Project (formerly known as Project ISOLUS (Interim Storage of Laid-Up Submarines) includes past and current classes of nuclear submarines, 27 in all. Current plans do not include disposal of ASTUTE class or successor submarines although any facilities provided as part of the SDP will retain the flexibility to accommodate future classes of submarines if required. However, any such decision is outside the scope of SDP. Funding for the dismantling of future submarine classes is held by the MoD Integrated Project Teams who have responsibility for those projects including approval processes and statutory consultations and is not held by the SDP.
In terms of interim storage and disposal of ILW, MoD intends to utilise the proposed national repository. MoD’s planning assumption is that, by the time the first of the ASTUTE Class submarines leaves Naval service, there should be no further requirement for interim storage of Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) because, by that time, a national Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) should be available. Any ILW arising from the future dismantling of ASTUTE class and successor submarines would therefore be sent directly for disposal. This assumption will be kept under review as arrangements for a GDF develop. Should a GDF not be available, MoD would continue with interim storage, in line with national policy. The same assumption is used for Nuclear Decommissioning Authority sites.
MoD acknowledges that in previous announcements, the scope of the Project was not entirely clear. The Front End Consultation (FEC) in 2000 correctly referred to 27 submarines. MoD accepts that when different numbers were used subsequently to reflect the intent to make facilities flexible enough to meet future requirements, this may have been misinterpreted as increasing the number of submarines. This was not the intent.