RWMAC's Annual Report for 2000-2001

Chapter 4

Current Regulatory Practice and Key Issues

Background

4.1 Delivery of policy objectives is dependent on appropriate regulatory systems being in place. Consideration of the UK's regulatory system has been an important element of the Committee's work during the past year, not only in respect of consultations on specific regulatory decisions, which are considered in chapter 9, but also in more general terms.

4.2 For regulation to be efficient and effective, it must be applied in accordance with a clear and coherent set of ground rules. For the public to understand the basis upon which protection from the harmful effects of radiation is being assured, these ground rules must be set out in a manner that is accessible and easily understood. By having clear and coherent statements available to them, users of radioactive materials can also be certain of their targets and plan their operational procedures and investment accordingly.

4.3 Interactions and potential overlaps between different regulatory bodies also need to be identified and carefully managed, and regulatory operations monitored and reviewed. Precisely such interactions and overlaps exist in respect of the regulation of UK nuclear sites, where NII has responsibility for regulating the on-site management of radioactive wastes under NIA65 and the environment agencies, EA and SEPA, have responsibility for regulating their off-site disposal under RSA93. In this context, the term "disposal" covers a number of operations. These include the transfer of wastes for treatment and/or storage on other sites, as well as the final sentencing of solid waste streams, including incineration and burial. They also cover the release to the environment of radioactive discharges, both liquid and gaseous.

Regulation of environmental discharges

4.4 It is because of the need for regulatory systems to be both effectively applied and easily understood that the current absence of clear Government policies for the control of radioactive discharges, as well as the long-term management of solid radioactive wastes, is of concern to RWMAC. This is a concern clearly shared by others.

4.5 In October 1999, RWMAC submitted written evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, in respect of its enquiry into the work of EA. This was followed by an appearance before the Committee, on 30 November 1999, of three Members of RWMAC to give oral evidence.

4.6 In the report of its findings ¹, the Select Committee commented:

"It is of particular concern that both RWMAC and those in industry who are subject to radioactive substance regulation have been discussing this issue (the principles and criteria behind radioactive discharge authorisation) with [the Government] for some considerable time, with as yet no positive outcome. It appears that the Agency is working almost in a vacuum where regulatory principles are concerned, with the result that neither they, nor those whom they regulate, nor the general public, can be clear about what is required in this area. We strongly urge [the Government] to produce as soon as possible, in consultation with the Agency, a clear statement of regulatory policy and practice in the area of radioactive substances and waste".

4.7 It will be clear from chapter 3 of this Annual Report that, during 2000, the Government took several positive steps to fill this policy "vacuum" in respect of control of radioactive discharges. These steps included issue of consultation documents on the draft UK Strategy for Radioactive Discharges 2001-2020 ² and on draft Statutory Guidance on the Regulation of Radioactive Discharges into the Environment from Nuclear Licensed Sites ³. It remains to be seen how far the final versions of the Discharge Strategy and the Statutory Guidance will ultimately provide the clear statement of "the overall purpose and objectives of the discharge authorisation process" ⁴, the need for which RWMAC has advocated for many years, so as to be able to put UK radioactive discharge regulation on a clear and consistent footing.

Solid waste management

4.8 Solid radioactive wastes need to be managed over the short, medium and long-term. This, in turn, implies a need for clear regulatory objectives in respect of such management over each of these timeframes. Absence of clear policies for the management of radioactive waste will inevitably make these regulatory objectives difficult to define.

4.9 At present, facilities exist only for the disposal of two categories of the UK's solid radioactive wastes. Authorisations may be granted by the environment agencies for most forms of solid LLW to be burned in incinerators, buried in landfill sites under special conditions known as "controlled burial", or to be disposed of to the BNFL site at Drigg in Cumbria (a second LLW disposal facility at Dounreay has now closed). Very low level radioactive waste (VLLW) may be authorised for disposal to landfill as ordinary refuse ("dustbin disposal") or for incineration.

4.10 The UK's intermediate level and high level radioactive wastes (ILW and HLW), together with some LLW, are generally kept, at present, in stores pending formulation of new policy for long-term management of solid wastes (see Chapter 3) and the development of appropriate facilities in line with the decisions made. ILW arises in solid, semi-solid and liquid form, while HLW arises exclusively as a liquid waste product of the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. Conditioning processes are used to immobilise these semi-solid and liquid wastes, by mixing them with cement or molten glass. They are then packaged in steel drums or other specially approved metal containers. ILW stores exist at all nuclear sites and there is a vitrified product store (for solidified HLW) at Sellafield.

4.11 Some liquid HLW, in its original unconditioned form (generally known as High Active Liquor; HAL), is kept in tanks, in above-ground stores, at both Sellafield and Dounreay. Unconditioned ILW sludges are, similarly, in storage at a number of nuclear sites.

4.12 Spent nuclear fuel, which the UK Government does not currently regard as waste, is either held in long-term storage or reprocessed.

Comments on regulatory procedures and guidance

4.13 In light of its interest in regulation, and the need for clear documentation of regulatory practices, RWMAC has been invited to comment on a number of items of regulatory guidance in recent years.

4.14 In May 2000, RWMAC provided substantive comments to HSE on two sets of draft guidance for its NII inspectors. These covered two issues - management of nuclear matter, including radioactive materials and wastes, on nuclear licensed sites, and the decommissioning of such sites. The comments made are discussed in Chapter 9 of the Committee's 20^th Annual Report ⁵. The final versions of the HSE guidance were finalised and made available on the HSE's website in March 2001.

4.15 In September 2000, informal comments were offered to EA on an initial draft of guidance for its inspectors dealing with applications from nuclear operators for conditioning of ILW. In practice, the guidance dealt with retrieval, conditioning, and storage of ILW. Again, the EA guidance on the conditioning of ILW was finalised, and published on its website in July 2001.

4.16 Among the more important points raised in respect of EA's conditioning guidance were: the need for clarity of responsibility for decision-making (given that EA, HSE, and Nirex - through its Letters of Comfort system - are all involved), the need for compatibility with HSE inspector guidance, the issue of securing passivity for stored wastes, and the timescale objectives sought for waste packages and stores in the existing absence of clear long-term Government policy for the management of the waste.

4.17 In its responses to both the HSE and EA inspector guidance, RWMAC expressed its strong support for the concept of passivity of radioactive wastes in storage. The Committee takes passivity to be the holding of radioactive material in a passively safe form with minimal need for active control systems or human intervention. The waste form should be immobile, physically and chemically stable, and resistant to significant deterioration or reaction over a reasonably foreseeable storage period. Thus, waste packaging and its storage surroundings are important.

4.18 It has long been recognised (for example in Cm 2919 ⁶) that the issue may not be straightforward, given that some forms of conditioning might foreclose future waste management options, notably disposal. The Committee believes that, given the current state of knowledge, such conflict is likely to be more asserted than real. In most cases, it should be possible to put wastes into a suitably passive form that does not unduly foreclose options. The general presumption should, therefore, be to seek to put wastes into a passively safe form except where potential for foreclosure of options can be clearly demonstrated. Not least, this would serve to provide greater reassurance of safety for members of the public. RWMAC has already suggested ⁷ that the benefits of developing an operational definition of passive storage, that can be used as a yardstick for operational performance, should be given careful consideration by the regulators.

4.19 RWMAC has commented in the past ⁸ that the role of EA and SEPA in remediation schemes for radioactively contaminated land is essentially ad-hoc in nature. More recently, the Committee offered its comments on draft guidance prepared by EA for use by inspectors who become involved in clean-up work (see chapter 8).

4.20 RWMAC welcomes these various initiatives by the regulators to update procedural documentation and make the final versions publicly available. Only in such a way can open, transparent and consistent regulatory systems for dealing with radioactive wastes, which RWMAC has, for some time, advocated, be achieved. It is important, for example, that guidance on site clean-up takes account of the wider regulatory regime for disposal of the resulting solid LLW. There is also significant read-across, not least in relation to the need for transparency, to questions of the methodology for assessing radiation dose to the public, in relation to which there is ongoing work by a number of parties, including EA itself (see chapter 10).

Interaction between the regulators and "Memoranda of Understanding"

4.21 In March 2001, RWMAC provided a response to the consultation carried out by the Government in relation to its FMPR of EA.

4.22 In its response, RWMAC commented on the importance, as part of radioactive materials and wastes regulation, of the interaction between EA and HSE/NII. It stated:

"There is a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the Agency and the HSE in respect of nuclear site regulation, covering both respective responsibilities and operation at the interface. It is RWMAC's perception that operation of this MoU has not always worked particularly well in the past, to the detriment of those who are regulated.

It is also important for the two sets of regulators to identify suitably common objectives in the areas where their respective responsibilities interface or overlap. It is also important that training and guidance for the two sets of regulators reflect the agreed MoU and fully compatible means of operation. For this reason, RWMAC believes that the operation of the MoU, and practice relating to it, should be formally and independently reviewed on a periodic basis".

4.23 Again, the interface between SEPA and NII is just as important for the several nuclear sites located in Scotland. In its report on the restoration of the UKAEA Dounreay site (see chapter 7), the Committee suggested that failure to establish the best practicable means (BPM) of dealing with contaminated effluent from the abatement process for the Dounreay Fast Reactor's (DFR's) primary circuit coolant has meant that work to remove hazardous material from the DFR remains in limbo. This was cited in the report as an example of lack of common purpose between the operator and the two sets of regulators that is inhibiting progress with decommissioning of the Dounreay site. It was also suggested that the situation might be rectified through more effective use of the SEPA-NII MoU.

4.24 The precise framing and method of operation of both the EA-HSE MoU and the SEPA-HSE MoU are, potentially, very important contributors towards effective and efficient regulation of radioactive waste management on nuclear sites. Their operation, therefore, is something that RWMAC will be looking to explore more fully as part of its forthcoming joint studies with the Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee (NuSAC).

Joint studies with NuSAC

4.25 NuSAC is a committee that advises the Health and Safety Commission on major issues affecting the safety of UK nuclear installations and related research. Towards the end of 2000, the Chairmen of the two committees - Professor Charles Curtis of RWMAC and Professor John Head of NuSAC - met and agreed that the committees should propose to Ministers that two joint studies, reflecting shared interests, be undertaken :

• a study of the requirements for the conditioning, packaging and storage of the UK's ILW;
• a review of the regulation of civil nuclear safety and radioactive waste management in the UK.

4.26 At the time this Annual Report was being prepared, only the study of ILW conditioning had been specified in detail and commenced. The study is multi-faceted, looking at : the current state of the UK's ILW, and the plans and arrangements for putting it into a safe conditioned form; the problems caused by the collapse of the UK Nirex programme in 1997 - aimed at developing an underground repository for disposal of ILW - and subsequent adjustments to it; the approaches of the regulatory bodies involved - NII and the environment agencies - and their interface and interaction arrangements; views of the residual UK Nirex role; and the adequacy of current Government policies for the management of ILW.

References

¹ House of Commons - Environment Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Sixth Report: The Environment Agency, The Stationery Office, May 2000.

² UK Strategy for Radioactive Discharges 2001-2020 : Consultation Document, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions et al, June 2000.

³ Statutory Guidance on the Regulation of Radioactive Discharges into the Environment from Nuclear Licensed Sites, a Consultation Paper, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, October 2000.

⁴ The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's Advice on Issues which Need to be Addressed in the Guidance to be Given to the Environment Agencies on the Principles for Determining Radioactive Waste Discharge Authorisations - the "Principles Document", Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, July 1998.

⁵ Twentieth Annual Report of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, November 2000.

⁶ Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy - Final Conclusions, HMSO, July 1995.

⁷ The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's Advice to Ministers on the Radioactive Waste Implications of Reprocessing, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, November 2000.

⁸ The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's Advice to Ministers on the Ministry of Defence's Arrangements for Dealing with Radioactively Contaminated Land, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, August 2000.