RWMAC Annual Report 2001/2002

Chapter 2: Developments in UK radioactive waste management policy

Current policy initiatives

2.1 Radioactive waste management policy in the UK is in the course of a general review. While this proceeds, the status of current guidance, what is considered to be current policy and what is not, remains a matter of some uncertainty, a situation on which RWMAC commented in its 21st Annual Report ¹. These uncertainties apply to the management of solid radioactive wastes and, to a lesser degree, to controls over the discharge of liquid and gaseous radioactive wastes to the environment, as well as to related areas, most notably arrangements for dealing with radioactively contaminated land. During the period covered by this report, a number of initiatives have been launched that aim to clarify policy, but, on the whole, they offer the promise of things to come and do not, in themselves, represent major progress.

2.2 In respect of solid radioactive wastes, the UK Government and the Devolved Administrations for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (referred to here, for convenience, as the Government) issued their consultation document Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) on 12 September 2001. The main aim of MRWS was to secure views on the processes to be used for deciding future policy for the long-term management of the UK's solid radioactive wastes. MRWS also declared the aim of basing this decision on a process of national debate, so as to secure a policy that will enjoy public support and confidence. It discussed, and asked for comments on, the techniques that might be used to support the debate, the possible formation of a new advisory body to assist Government in the process of policy formulation, and how any research requirements should be managed.

2.3 MRWS also invited comments on a number of more specific radioactive waste management issues. These included: whether the environment agencies require a new statutory power over the storage of radioactive waste on nuclear licensed sites; the principle of segregating UK radioactive wastes by half-lives; management of spent sealed radioactive sources; the link between waste substitution and the availability of a repository or other waste management facility; the general approach to decommissioning; and policy for the long-term management of plutonium and uranium, including whether some proportion of the UK's stocks of these materials should be regarded as wastes.

2.4 In relation to policy on the control of radioactive discharges, the period covered by this report saw publication of the UK Strategy for Radioactive Discharges 2001-2020 ² on 23 July 2002. This describes how the UK will implement agreements reached at meetings of the OSPAR Commission, concerned with prevention of pollution to the marine environment. Ultimately, the Strategy will take effect in conjunction with statutory guidance issued by Government to EA and to SEPA. The EA statutory guidance was the subject of a discussion document issued in October 2000 ³, although the outcome of the consultation has yet to be declared. Statutory guidance to SEPA is understood to be in the course of preparation.

2.5 Policy for the control and remediation of radioactively contaminated land was the subject of a Government consultation paper as long ago as February 1998 ⁴. The outcome of that consultation was not made known and no formal proposals on the part of Government have yet been announced. In March 2002, the Safegrounds Project, sponsored by Government and the nuclear industry, issued for consultation its Good Practice Guidance for the Management of Contaminated Land on Nuclear and Defence Sites (see paragraphs 6.11-6.14). The Guidance itself was launched in September 2002. In June 2002, following consultation during 2001, EA published guidance on the Characterisation and Remediation of Radioactively Contaminated Land. The Committee believes that both pieces of work contribute helpfully to the debate, but, inevitably, their usefulness is limited by the continuing absence of policy guidance.

2.6 RWMAC's views on the MRWS consultation, and on the UK Strategy for Radioactive Discharges, are set out in following sections of this chapter. Its views on the Safegrounds contaminated land guidance are set out in chapter 6.

RWMAC evidence to the EFRA Select Committee

2.7 At the end of 2001, after publication of MRWS, the House of Commons Environment Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Select Committee conducted an enquiry into Radioactive Waste Policy. This was framed as follows:

• the timetable for, and progress made in, the Government's consultation exercise;
• the difficulties arising from current policy, including what should be defined as waste;
• the impact that the decommissioning of nuclear power plants (NPPs), any nuclear power new-build programme, and production of mixed oxide (MoX) nuclear fuel at Sellafield, will have on policy.

RWMAC submitted a memorandum of its views to the Select Committee and was invited to give oral evidence. This session took place on 17 December 2001, with Professor Curtis, Mr Barker and Dr Davies representing the Committee. RWMAC's memorandum and its oral evidence are contained in the published Select Committee proceedings ⁵ and can be viewed on the Select Committee website. Their content is consistent with the Committee's response to the MRWS consultation, a summary of which forms the next three sub-sections of this report.

MRWS: the policy formulation process

2.8 An initial draft response to the MRWS consultation document was prepared by RWMAC's Consultation Response WG (now termed Policy Review WG), chaired by Professor Andy Blowers, the members of which are listed in Annex 2. This was discussed at an extraordinary plenary meeting of the Committee held in Lancaster on 24-25 January 2002, agreed in all but detail at the February plenary meeting, and submitted to the Government on 11 March 2002. The response is a relatively short document. It sets out the Committee's views on the features that should characterise the process of policy formulation (including areas where RWMAC's thinking differs from that of Government), provides a response to other specific issues raised in MRWS (see paragraph 2.3), and addresses some other matters believed important by the Committee.

2.9 A number of RWMAC publications, over recent years, have set out the way that the Committee believes future policy for the long-term management of solid radioactive wastes should be developed. The process began in April 1999 with advice to Ministers on the Establishment of Scientific Consensus on the Interpretation and Significance of the Results of Science Programmes into Radioactive Waste Disposal ⁶. Further advice was submitted to the Minister for the Environment, Michael Meacher, in the form of two letters, in November 1999 and February 2000, published in the 20^th Annual Report ⁷. Lastly, advice to Ministers on the Process for Formulation of Future Policy for the Long-Term Management of UK Solid Radioactive Waste ⁸ was published in September 2001, at the same time as, and referred to in, MRWS itself.

2.10 The RWMAC response to MRWS ⁹ drew on this previous work. The key points made on the process of policy formulation were that:

• it should be founded on a set of clear guiding principles: provision of adequate time for exploration and resolution of complex issues; early involvement of the public and other stakeholders; openness and transparency; a deliberative and accessible process of decision-making; and commitment to appropriate peer review of scientific and other expert input. The issue of equity, that is the extent to which both the process for deciding policy and the policy itself are generally perceived and accepted to be fair, would also need to be explored;
• it should provide for all practicable options for the long-term management of the UK's radioactive waste to be assessed against a set of common evaluation criteria that take account of stated concerns about radioactive waste and its management. Both the list of practicable options, and the criteria against which they are evaluated, should be developed through a process of open discussion;
• proposals for future policy must be seen to flow logically from the process. This indicates the need for a carefully structured and phased approach to the identification and evaluation of options. A possible five stage approach was set out in the response;
• both public and stakeholder groups need be involved. A range of techniques, applied on a horses-for-courses basis, will be required in order to engage the public and stakeholders, and provide the information necessary to enable them to consider and comment on the policy options;
• it should be overseen by an independent, or at least balanced-interest, body with a remit to design and oversee the overall process of policy development, including staging, up to the point of delivering future policy recommendations to Government.

Government would then draw on the overseeing body's recommendations to decide future policy. During the process, decisions would be banked stage by stage, with provision for reporting to Ministers and Parliament at key stages of the work.

2.11 The response suggested that the MRWS target of 2007 for deciding the preferred long-term management strategy for the UK's solid radioactive wastes and setting out the means of its implementation (including decisions on any site selection process that are necessary) is ambitious, but needs to be met.

MRWS: other issues raised in the consultation document

2.12 Of the other issues raised in MRWS, RWMAC commented:

i. Whether the environment agencies require a new statutory power over the storage of radioactive waste on nuclear licensed sites

This was not supported. The Committee believes that the proposal to give the environment agencies a new statutory power is unnecessarily broad in concept, with the potential to impact on day to day waste operations, as well as on waste disposal. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) already regulates waste accumulation and storage on nuclear sites and difficulties would inevitably arise from dual regulation. For these reasons, the response suggested that other means of enhancing the role of the agencies should be examined. In putting forward this view, the response drew on the findings of the Committee's study of ILW conditioning, packaging and storage carried out jointly with NuSAC (see paragraph 1.6).

ii. The principle of segregating UK radioactive wastes by half-lives

The various benefits of segregation, including enhancing the role of decay-storage were set out in the response. Some wastes decay relatively rapidly (such as short-lived ILW) and the way this informs issues of potential disposal routes could be exploited. Some long-lived radionuclides are highly mobile and prejudicial to disposal facility safety cases, and their segregation and isolation could, therefore, be beneficial.

The Committee felt that while the extent to which segregation can be applied to historic waste streams, many of which contain complex cocktails of radionuclides, is likely to be limited, studies on the possible scope for, and advantages of, segregating future waste arisings would be worthwhile. Such studies would need to take into account different radiotoxicity factors and the levels of risk from radiation exposure that are likely to be involved.

iii. Management of spent sealed radioactive sources

MRWS summarised RWMAC's own recommendations on the management of spent sealed radioactive sources (SSRSs), originally contained in the Committee's report on the problems of small users of radioactive materials ¹⁰. The response recommended that the Liabilities Management Authority (LMA), proposed in the DTI White Paper Managing the Nuclear Legacy ¹¹ might take on management of historic liabilities in the form of SSRSs from UK hospitals and universities, as it was felt that these, as wastes owned by the public sector, lay logically within its overall remit. Managing the Nuclear Legacy itself refers to the issue being taken forward as part of the MRWS initiative, however. A working group sponsored by EA has also been charged with examining the management and disposal of sealed radioactive sources (see paragraphs 6.39 -6.40)

iv. The link between waste substitution and the availability of a repository or other facility

All post-1976 spent fuel reprocessing contracts placed with British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL) provide for the return of wastes to the overseas customer prior to a date 25 years after their generation. Under waste substitution, BNFL would be able to return a small amount of additional high level waste (HLW), on top of that for which the customer is responsible, in return for retaining some intermediate level and low level wastes (ILW and LLW). No novel waste management problems are posed by the additional ILW and LLW that would be retained in the UK.

For LLW, there is this "link" - between retention of the waste in the UK and its long-term management - provided by the facility at Drigg, in Cumbria. The effect of this is that BNFL is currently permitted to operate substitution in relation to LLW, since this may be disposed of to Drigg. By contrast, the present absence of any long-term management route for ILW means that no such link exists in this case.

The RWMAC response noted that, since the collapse of the UK Nirex Ltd ILW programme in 1997, "the availability of a long-term management facility has receded in time". It suggested that no reason for revising policy on substitution was obvious and this, on the face of it, could only arise from new circumstances. If these were to arise, the case for changing policy would have to rest on evaluation of all its "technical, environmental, economic and political elements" and public consultation carried out prior to any decision. The response reasserted RWMAC's view, set out in its 1999 report on reprocessing ¹² that BNFL (or, in future, the LMA) should regularly update plans for the return of reprocessing wastes to its overseas customers and report on progress.

v. The general approach to decommissioning

The response took the view that the approach outlined in MRWS to the decommissioning of nuclear sites was sensible, if non-specific, in nature. Decommissioning plans need to be identified on a case by case basis, given the different types of installations concerned and the range of prospective waste streams that are a consequence of these differences. In each case, the strategy would need to be acceptable to the planning authority in whose area the site is located, and to the local community.

RWMAC saw a need for further discussion of the proposals with HSE, the environment agencies, and Nirex (as current custodian of waste conditioning and packaging in the light of long-term management requirements), as well as planning authorities and local communities, in order to identify and resolve potential problems.

The guidance issued by HSE to its nuclear inspectors in 2001 ¹³ was noted. However, whilst welcome in concept, RWMAC noted that such guidance could lead to Government policy being superseded by default. The response recommended careful scrutiny of the HSE guidance to determine the extent that Government could subscribe to it. This would also serve to identify whether there are elements of the guidance that could be included in a future Government policy statement on decommissioning.

For decommissioning strategies to be formulated effectively, other, wider, elements of Government radioactive waste management policy need to be clear. These include: standards and lifetimes for the conditioning, packaging and storage of the wastes generated by decommissioning, and, coupled with this, a means of achieving their passive safe storage; an understanding of how the UK's obligations under OSPAR could impact on decommissioning; and standards for the remediation of radioactively contaminated land, including how the HSE's "no danger" criterion, for the delicensing of nuclear sites, should be interpreted.

Subsequently, Managing the Nuclear Legacy ¹¹ stated: "The Government believes .. .. that now is a good time to examine the current policy on decommissioning and whether there is value, for the industry, regulators and the public more widely, in addressing uncertainties in its application and interpretation".

vi. Policy on separated plutonium and uranium including whether some of these should be considered waste

RWMAC took the view that at least a proportion of the UK's current stocks of plutonium and uranium will, inevitably, need to be declared as wastes at some point in the future. The response quoted the Committee's evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology in 1999 ¹⁴:

"There can only be a limited use for the stock (of separated plutonium) in the foreseeable future and .. .. the remainder of the plutonium should be declared a waste unless a credible reason for doing otherwise can be given".

A similar observation is likely to apply to some parts of the UK's uranium stock.

The response recommended that a robust examination of these issues would be necessary. Questions concerning what components of the uranium and plutonium stocks can be declared wastes, and the time at which this can be decided, are complex. RWMAC believes that the condition of the stock and the potential for its future use, as well as its value on company balance sheets, must be fully taken into account.

There appear to be gaps in understanding of the treatment of plutonium and uranium necessary to condition them for interim storage or eventual disposal. In particular, work is needed to:

• include potential plutonium and uranium waste forms in the process of evaluating long-term management options for solid radioactive waste against common criteria (as part of the formulation of wider policy);
• identify material and storage forms for the potential wastes that could be considered to be sufficiently passively safe, and put in place a system of ensuring that these are compatible with their long-term waste management.

MRWS: other key issues identified by RWMAC

2.13 RWMAC identified two other key issues in respect of policy for the management of solid radioactive waste. The first was the role of the LMA, proposals for which were, at the time the RWMAC MRWS response was submitted (March 2002), under discussion within Government. The second was the need for guidance on management of solid radioactive waste during the interim period before long-term policy could be decided and implemented.

(a) initial views on the LMA proposals

RWMAC noted that the LMA would be required to begin its work well before policy on the long-term management of solid radioactive was decided. It also identified the need for clear direction and guidance on all aspects of the LMA's remit for the discharge of historic liabilities. The LMA's remit, responsibilities and activities needed, therefore, to be clearly defined and delineated in terms of:

• the radioactive materials and wastes it will manage;
• its relationship with contractors, particularly in meeting regulatory requirements;
• the timescale over which it will operate;
• its role, if any, in formulating policy;
• how it will be funded, in particular, so it is able to plan and progress major projects effectively over the long-term;
• its relationship with Government, including the extent to which it will set its own strategies;
• how it will do business generally, including the introduction of commercial disciplines consistent with operational safety and protection of the environment, development of management and technical skills, and commissioning of research.

2.14 A copy of the RWMAC MRWS response was sent to DTI, the department responsible for the LMA proposals. RWMAC is pleased to see that the Managing the Nuclear Legacy White Paper addresses a number of these issues.

(b) interim policy

2.15 The need for "clear direction and guidance", referred to above in the context of the LMA, applies equally to owners of radioactive waste, including the Ministry of Defence and the private sector British Energy Group. It also covers policy on radioactive discharges to the environment and radioactively contaminated land as well as solid wastes; in other words, the entire gamut of radioactive waste management.

2.16 The MRWS response made clear RWMAC's views that Cm 2919 ¹⁵, the last comprehensive statement of Government policy on radioactive waste management, has, to a considerable degree, been overtaken by events. The response stated: "It is therefore important that the Government takes steps to clarify, not least for the benefit of the LMA, which parts of Cm 2919 are extant". In view of the Government's indicative date for a decision on long-term management options (see paragraph 2.18), the response recommended that consideration be given by the Government to preparing policy guidance for the period before a new comprehensive statement of policy can be promulgated.

2.17 A central aim of the guidance would be to obviate the possibility of policy being made by default and in a fragmentary manner. If this were to happen, it could potentially foreclose some of the long-term management options under consideration as part of MRWS. RWMAC recommended that policy for the interim period was needed in order to address:

• decommissioning of nuclear plant;
• the standards and objectives to be applied to the conditioning, packaging and storage of all solid wastes;
• treatment of waste for passively safe storage as advocated by HSE ¹³;
• lifetime objectives for the packaging and interim storage of conditioned waste;
• how confidence in the compatibility of waste conditioning with long-term management arrangements for wastes (such as that intended by the Nirex Letters of Comfort system applied to ILW) can be maintained;
• interim treatment of waste prior to final conditioning (in order, for example, to avoid the need for its reworking);
• arrangements for dealing with any spent fuel, plutonium and uranium declared as waste;
• the principles underpinning, and methodology for the justification of, new processes involving the creation of solid radioactive waste and radioactive discharges. This might include nuclear power new build programmes;
• the standards to be applied to nuclear site remediation and the clean-up of other radioactively contaminated land.

RWMAC continues to see the clarification of these issues, as a means of providing guidance for the interim period, as a matter that should be addressed, without undue delay, by Government.

MRWS: the way forward

2.18 On 29 July 2002, the Government announced proposals for carrying the MRWS initiative forward ¹⁶. Key elements of the announcement included:

• the decision to press ahead with a review of waste management options, seeking the views of interested stakeholders, the public and Government departments;
• the establishment of an independent body to oversee the policy review process and to make recommendations on the option, or combination of options, for the long-term management of solid radioactive waste;
• provision for a review, the aims of which are: first, set the framework for debate by establishing broad agreement on the wastes to be considered, the range of management options for each of them, and the criteria against which the options should be assessed; second, assess each option, including commissioning any new research required for this purpose; last, draw up recommendations for Ministers to consider;
• confirmation of 2007 as the indicative date for a decision on the chosen policy option, or options, including the means by which any necessary sites will be selected, with a commitment to proceed faster if possible;
• a commitment to carry out assessment of all practicable waste management options. This will incorporate the options for managing currently classified wastes, and also consider the implications of providing for the management of other materials that might come to be regarded as wastes in the future, such as some separated plutonium and uranium, as well as certain quantities of spent nuclear fuel;
• publication, over the summer and autumn of 2002, of further proposals, including "pressing issues" such as arrangements for managing waste safely in the short-term and an announcement on waste substitution, as well as coverage of other policy areas identified in MRWS, including decommissioning, the powers of the environment agencies, managing SSRSs, and waste classification.

2.19 RWMAC welcomes this statement, which addresses many of the Committee's recommendations, as well as the progress achieved with the MRWS initiative thus far. The Committee endorses the establishment of a body to oversee the policy review process although still believes that securing a "balance of interests" is a more realistic aim than achieving complete independence. There continue to be clear benefits in setting up the body to an early timeframe, although the December 2002 target for doing so is challenging.

2.20 As part of work to set up the new body, RWMAC believes that the Government should give particular attention to ensuring that it is sufficiently well supported, in both financial and human resource terms, and is made aware of (in order to be able to draw on) existing sources of expertise in its areas of responsibility.

2.21 The Committee believes that, in addition to preparing the ground for the new body, considerably more work is needed to fill in the detail of other areas of the July 2002 Government proposals.

The UK Strategy for Radioactive Discharges 2001-2020

2.22 The Government published its UK Strategy for Radioactive Discharges 2001-2020 ² on 23 July 2002. This takes on board a number of the points made by RWMAC in its June 2000 response to the Government consultation on a draft strategy, see Annex 9 of the 20^th Annual Report ⁷.

2.23 The Strategy clarifies the Government's view that the application of the principles of "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) and "best practicable means" (BPM) will be the mechanism for the objective of discharges reduction in line with the UK's OSPAR commitments. Equally, there is the caveat, included in the document itself, that "in the unlikely event that it appeared that application of BPM/ALARA would not deliver the objective of the Strategy, the Government would urgently review this strategy". This emphasises the need for a clear definition of the meaning of BPM, along with an appropriate methodology for evaluating its delivery, an issue which is discussed further in chapter 3. Cm 2919 makes clear that in determining whether a particular proposal involving the release of radioactivity to the environment represents BPM, the regulators will not require the operator "to incur expenditure, whether in money, time or trouble, which is disproportionate to the benefits likely to be achieved".

2.24 The further statement "It is the Government's view that the unnecessary introduction of radioactivity into the environment is undesirable, even at levels where the doses to both human and non-human species are low and, on the basis of current knowledge, are unlikely to cause harm" also occurs in the Strategy. RWMAC believes that interpretation of "disproportionate" in the definition of BPM needs to be carefully considered and explained by Government in order to shed light on the relationship between these two statements.

2.25 RWMAC also foresees that there are likely to be significant problems in identifying discharge levels at which the principles set out in the previous two paragraphs can both be satisfied. The NuSAC/RWMAC Regulatory Review, the conclusions of which are set out in the following chapter, discusses these, and related, issues further.

References

¹ Twenty First Annual Report of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, October 2001.

² UK Strategy for Radioactive Discharges 2001-2020, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, July 2002.

³ Statutory Guidance on the Regulation of Radioactive Discharges on the Environment from Nuclear Licensed Sites: A Consultation Paper, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, November2000.

⁴ Control and Remediation of Radioactively Contaminated Land: a Consultation Paper, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions et al, February 1998.

⁵ House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee, Radioactive Waste: The Government's Consultation Process, HC 407, February 2002.

⁶ The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's Advice to Ministers on the Interpretation and Significance of the Results of Science Programmes into Radioactive Waste Disposal, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London, April 1999.

⁷ Twentieth Annual Report of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, November 2000.

⁸ The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's Advice to Ministers on the Process for Formulation of Future Policy for Long Term Management of UK Solid Radioactive Waste, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, September 2001.

⁹ The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's Response to the Government's Consultation Document: "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely", Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, June 2002.

¹⁰ The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's Advice to Ministers on the Problems of "Small Users" of Radioactive Materials, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, September 2000.

¹¹ Managing the Nuclear Legacy, a strategy for action (Cm 5552), Department of Trade and Industry, July 2002.

¹² 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, London, November 2000.

¹³ Health and Safety Executive, Nuclear Safety Directorate, Guidance for Inspectors on Decommissioning on Nuclear Licensed Sites, March 2001.

¹⁴ House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology Report on Management of Nuclear Waste: Evidence Submitted From 1 February 1998, The Stationery Office, February 1999.

¹⁵ Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy: Final Conclusions (Cm 2919), Her Majesty's Stationery Office, July 1995.

¹⁶ On 29 July 2002 (after the Parliamentary recess), the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Margaret Beckett, wrote to MPs on the detail of the announcement, enclosing a copy of a Defra news release.