RWMAC Annual Report 2001/2002

Chapter 5: RWMAC responses to consultation exercises under RSA93

Introduction

5.1 Under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (RSA93), the disposal of radioactive waste may be authorised by the two environment agencies, EA and SEPA. The term "disposal" is drawn widely, but, for the purposes of this chapter, relates to the burial and incineration of low level and very low level radioactive waste (LLW and VLLW) and the discharge of radioactivity to the environment in the form of liquid and airborne, including gaseous, wastes.

5.2 EA and SEPA undertake consultation as part of the process of reviewing disposal authorisations granted in relation to civil and defence nuclear sites. The nature of the information prepared by the regulators to support the consultation exercise varies, but normally consists of the application itself (in cases where the operator requests that the authorisation be reviewed) and a regulatory discussion document, which, in England and Wales (although not normally in Scotland), includes an indicative certificate of authorisation, including draft limits and conditions. Following consideration of the points made by respondents, the regulators sometimes produce a "determination document" giving the reasons behind their decisions.

5.3 RWMAC is included in standing lists of consultees and responds in the large majority of cases. The work is undertaken by RWMAC's Environmental Radiation Working Group, chaired by Dr Martin Courtis. Current responses are now posted on the RWMAC website and others may be obtained from the secretariat office. Applications from the small user sector are very much more numerous but, except where approval to use "controlled burial" (see the glossary at Annex 5) is sought, there is no requirement to consult.

5.4 The material made available by the regulators is often lengthy and detailed. Chapter 9 of RWMAC's 21st Annual Report ¹ described the nature of the documentation provided and also the control limits for the protection of the UK public from the harmful effects of radiation in relation to which the dose implications of the disposal applications may be judged. This present chapter provides summaries of the RWMAC responses provided to four consultation exercises. It will be clear from these summaries that RWMAC has, on some occasions, indicated its concerns about the quality and make-up of information provided by the regulators to enable the public, in particular, to participate. For this reason, the Committee has provided EA and SEPA with its views on "model" structure and contents of consultation documents, see paragraphs 5.22-5.23.

5.5 RWMAC is also involved in work taking place under the auspices of the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) on methodologies for assessing the impact of authorised disposals in terms of radiation exposure of the population. This is described in paragraphs 5.24 - 5.26 below.

EA consultations

5.6 During the period covered by this Annual Report, comments were provided on two EA consultations.

Review of the Sellafield authorisations

5.7 In July 2001, RWMAC responded to EA's review of the six certificates of authorisation issued to British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL) in relation to its Sellafield site. This followed previous exercises on the Scope and Methodology for the Sellafield Review (described in RWMAC's 20th Annual Report) and a "fast-track" review of technetium-99 discharges from the site (in the 21st Annual Report).

5.8 In preparing its response, RWMAC benefited from discussions with both EA and BNFL. The Committee welcomed the intention by EA to issue a single certificate of authorisations covering all Sellafield disposals. It also commended the regulators for carrying out the review in an open and transparent manner, facilitating public involvement, and for achieving improvements in the quality of much, if not all, of the information provided.

5.9 The Committee was concerned, however, about the polarised positions of EA and BNFL in relation to some of the proposals. With this in mind, the response set out RWMAC's view of what would be required, in ideal circumstances, to support the future regulation of the site. The Committee believes that clearly set out Government policy on the control of discharges and how this relates to decommissioning and clean-up plans, and the need to deal with historic wastes, are central to this idea. The views expressed to RWMAC by the regulator and the operator were considered in this context. The response concluded that the overall limits proposed reflected the balance of considerations in a sensible way and were appropriate to the operational needs of the site.

5.10 The Committee's major concerns related to EA's proposal to apply a complex range of detailed secondary controls in relation to discharges from individual plants, sampling of waste streams, and short-term and advisory limits. Individually, the response conceded that these limits might be justified in terms of the resulting benefits, but, as a whole, it was felt that they represented a source of potential confusion and could affect understanding of how the site is regulated.

5.11 RWMAC's view was that the consultation material did not, on the face of it, justify inclusion of the complete set of secondary controls in terms of the costs and benefits delivered, including the reductions achieved in radiation exposure of the public. The response also stressed the need for EA to be satisfied that the controls were sufficiently flexible to allow the operator to construct an effective strategy for dealing with the accumulation of historic wastes on the site. It suggested that application of the best practicable means (BPM) condition, rather than year-on-year reductions proposed, should be the primary mechanism for controlling discharges. Lastly, it regretted that there was little evidence of systematic work to assess the potential radiation dose to Sellafield workers, including that associated with the proposed system of secondary controls.

5.12 A major conclusion of the response was that a streamlined and more carefully targeted system of controls would represent a more proportionate solution relative to the expenditure required. In other words, it would be more cost-effective regulation.

5.13 Following consideration by Ministers, EA published its decision on the review of the Sellafield authorisations in August 2002. Some proposals were revised to take account of RWMAC's main concerns. These related to the setting of plant and other secondary limits and, in the context of the site's changing operational requirements, the importance of flexibility in allowing adjustment of these kinds of second-tier controls. EA has indicated to RWMAC that simplified consultation procedures would be followed in such cases.

Amersham plc's Grove Centre

5.14 In September 2002, RWMAC responded to EA on its consultation concerning Amersham plc's application for variations to the authorisation certificates governing operations at its Grove Centre laboratory site in Amersham, Buckinghamshire.

5.15 The consultation document was generally well prepared and provided most of the information necessary to enable the public to understand the issues, although more information on the health risks from radiation, and the ways in which exposure can occur, would have been helpful.

5.16 RWMAC also welcomed the reductions in authorised discharge levels proposed, together with the condition requiring the operator to provide periodic reports on best practice developments for minimising all waste disposals. This reflects placement of BPM/ALARA principles at the centre of the UK Strategy for Radioactive Discharges 2001-2020 (see paragraphs 2.22-2.25) and the need for the regulators to be able to demonstrate the means by which those principles are being applied. The proposal for different discharge limits for operational and decommissioning activities was an interesting development that could, in principle, help to maintain downward pressure on the former, while also allowing decommissioning work to proceed. But RWMAC stressed the need for BPM and ALARA to be applied to both elements.

5.17 The consultation documents indicated that there was an assessed dose to the critical group of 250 microsieverts per year arising from direct radiation from the site source store. This estimate was derived from a NRPB report prepared for Amersham plc, which was unpublished at the time the consultation began, and was not, to RWMAC's knowledge, available for public inspection.

5.18 Direct radiation is regulated by HSE, but no commentary from HSE was included. The total dose to the Grove Centre critical group was 300 microsieverts, equal to the single source dose constraint set out in the 1995 White Paper (Cm 2919) ². RWMAC was disappointed, therefore, that EA and HSE together had not identified the issue as one where additional information was necessary to inform and reassure the public. The lack of coverage of dose from direct radiation contrasts strongly with regulatory attention to much lower levels of exposure from discharges.

SEPA consultations

5.19 In February and March 2002, RWMAC responded to SEPA on consultations carried out in respect of the decommissioning of the Dounreay Sodium Disposal Plant (SDP) and the operation of the Torness Nuclear Power Plant (NPP).

5.20 The application by AEA Technology in relation to the SDP raised no issues of significance in terms of the management of the waste streams or use of disposal routes. In its response, RWMAC criticised the clarity of the consultation document in two areas - failure to explain the reasons for providing multiple forecasts of dose, and the layout of the public information material generally - which did little to guide the reader through a range of complex issues. The response suggested that a more logical ordering might be adopted - reflecting the statutory requirement for SEPA to consult on the application, its duty to seek the views of the HSE and the Food Standards Agency (FSA), and the benefits of providing, in the interests of public understanding, an indication of limits and conditions likely to be included in the authorisation.

5.21 RWMAC repeated its view that information provided to assist public understanding must be clear and unambiguous in its response to the consultation on the British Energy Generation (BEG) application for Torness NPP. In this case, the lack of clarity concerned: the status of the draft limits and conditions provided in the consultation package and whether a two-part consultation was intended; the need to explain the relationship between authorised limits and actual discharges (i.e., the extent, and implications, of "headroom"); and better coverage of the nature of radiation hazard and risk. The Committee also commented that SEPA could usefully have defined the meaning of BPM and that, as part of the determination process, neither BEG nor SEPA had given satisfactory attention to the concepts of best practicable environmental option (BPEO) in managing the wastes and "as low as reasonably practicable" (ALARP) in securing the reduction of risk.

"Model Consultation Documents"

5.22 RWMAC believes that if the public is to have confidence in the management and regulation of radioactive waste, the discussion material to which it has access must be comprehensive and clear - that is, readily understandable by the layperson.

5.23 At its February 2002 plenary meeting, the Committee agreed to look into whether it would be possible to identify the requirements, in terms of coverage and order of presentation, for "model" consultation documents. This work was developed as advice for EA and SEPA by the Committee's Environmental Radiation Working Group and approved at the September 2002 plenary meeting. The advice (reproduced in the appendix to this chapter) was incorporated into letters sent to the two agencies on 11 October 2002.

Radiation dose assessment

5.24 Paragraph 5.5 above referred briefly to criticism of information for the public that, without adequate explanation, contains "multiple assessments of dose". For many years, RWMAC has advocated use of a common methodology for assessing dose as part of the determination of authorisations under RSA93. Where it is necessary to include more than one assessment of potential exposure, to take account, for example, of FSA's duties to protect the quality of the food chain against contamination, an explanation of the reasons for doing so should, in RWMAC's view, be provided.

5.25 Chapter 10 of the RWMAC 21st Annual Report ¹ described the Committee's response to a consultation exercise carried out by NRPB, together with the regulators, during 2000 on "Discharges of Radioactive Waste to the Environment: Principles for the Assessment of Public Doses", the aim of which was, in part, to work towards achievement of a common methodology. RWMAC members also participated in the "Consultative Exercise on Dose Assessment" convened by FSA in October 2000, a decision of which was to set up the National Dose Assessment Working Group (NDAWG).

5.26 NDAWG's terms of reference include:

• To facilitate exchange of data and views between all parties on assessment methodologies;
• To advance understanding between groups who are likely to have differing objectives and views on dose assessment methods;
• To identify and co-ordinate research which will progress dose assessment methods.

RWMAC is represented on NDAWG by Mrs Cathy Griffiths who serves on the sub-group looking at uncertainty and variability in probabilistic modelling used for prospective dose assessments.

CERRIE

5.27 In 2001, the Environment Minister, Michael Meacher, announced that there would be a review of models used to estimate health risks from radioactive materials taken into the body. This was to be undertaken by the Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters (CERRIE), a body operating under the auspices, although independent, of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, and jointly sponsored by Defra and the Department of Health. CERRIE's remit is to look at these risk models for radiation and health in the light of recent studies and any further research that might be needed.

5.28 Given the potential importance of this work to radioactive waste management policy and regulation, RWMAC sought observer status on CERRIE, but this request was rejected by Defra.

References

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

² Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy: Final Conclusions (Cm 2919), Her Majesty's Stationery Office, July 1995.

Appendix

RWMAC advice to the Environment Agencies on disposal authorisations under RSA93: Model Consultation Documents

Introduction

The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC) is routinely asked to provide its views on consultation exercises undertaken by the Environment Agency for England and Wales (EA) and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) in relation to possible authorisations to dispose of radioactive waste under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (RSA93). Consultation exercises can take place when an application for authorisation is received from a nuclear operator or when the regulators decide to review an authorisation (in which case an application may not be made). The Committee's aim is to make comments that EA and SEPA, as well as the public, will find helpful.

In this context, RWMAC has also considered what should be the "model" structure and contents of the documents prepared by EA and SEPA to facilitate consultation. The result of the work has been packaged as advice to EA and SEPA. The Committee hopes that the Agencies will find this advice useful. It is not designed to be definitive or prescriptive.

Overarching objectives of consultation

The overriding aim must be to present information in a way that permits those consulted to form an opinion. The concept of public consultation becomes meaningless if the information made available does not allow the reader to understand the issues and come to an informed view.

Although, in practice, many of those consulted are likely to have some technical knowledge, the target audience could be defined by the needs of the average respondent, namely members of the public interested in making their views known. There is a need for plain English and only limited use of jargon and acronyms.

The basic requirements are for information that is: non-ambiguous and easily understandable, complete (nothing omitted), accurate, logically ordered and neutral in tone. Guidance on the way in which responses might be presented, in order for the regulators to assess, and collate, all the views submitted, is helpful.

Structure of consultation documents

On the face of it, a logical order for the documents is:

1. What the applicant is seeking;

2. Information for the public on - law, Government policy, regulatory requirements, environmental and other relevant principles, and good scientific and technical practice - against which it will be judged;

3. What the regulators' views are;

4. What the regulators propose to do.

These requirements are not set in stone. For example, RSA93 does not require the operator to prepare background information. Therefore, the regulators should, early on, state clearly the basis of the consultation, e.g., on the application by itself, or, additionally, on a draft set of limits and conditions in response to it. The objectives of the consultation should be transparent and unambiguous. Normally, it will be to decide the application (by issuing a certificate of authorisation unless the application is refused); if there is the intention of a second round of consultation, this must be made clear.

The practices on the part of the regulators also vary. EA appears, invariably, to include a draft certificate. The usual basis of SEPA consultation is the application, together with a discussion document, but without a draft certificate. In RWMAC's view, both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. Inclusion of a draft certificate (particularly if "minded to grant" is used) has led some observers to claim that the regulators have already made up their mind and that the consultation is a sham. On the other hand, by setting out limits and conditions, the EA approach gives structure to the consultation documents and aids public understanding of what, subject to the views of respondents, the regulator might do. On balance, RWMAC favours the EA approach over that of SEPA on the basis that it makes it easier for a non-expert audience to offer a view.

Application for authorisation

The application (or if no application is made, an introductory section prepared by the regulators) needs to cover:

The applicant - legal entity and trading name; details of ownership.

The practice which is concerned and why the applicant believes it is justified. If there is more than one practice, e.g., power generation and ground remediation; reprocessing and plant decommissioning, this should be made clear.

Existing authorisation - when granted and its main features.

The nature of the wastes (type and category) and the disposal/discharge routes for which new authorisation is sought.

The function of each plant that contributes to the wastes generated.

The volume and activity of each waste stream.

The most significant radionuclides in terms of toxicity.

How BPEO was used to identify the preferred disposal option for which authorisation is sought; who carried out the work and who made the decision; what inputs were made and how they were weighted; the assessment procedures used; whether there was "set-aside" at any stage; the consultation undertaken; any non-quantifiable factors that played a part.

How BPM/ALARA (the key criterion set out in the recent UK Strategy for Radioactive Discharges 2001-2020) is/will be applied, including waste minimisation.

The application of any other key principles drawn on by the applicant: e.g., radiological protection, cost effectiveness/proportionality, sustainable development.

Information for the public

This needs to cover:

Why consultation is taking place; how RSA93 works.

What is Government policy; what are the gaps? Implications of OSPAR and the UK Strategy for Radioactive Discharges.

What are the environment agencies' overall aims; what guidance is given by Government; what account is taken of cost?

Explanation of the concept of the "justification of practices" and the role of Ministers in deciding it.

Comments by statutory consultees (HSE and the Food Standards Agency; FSA) and the Devolved Administrations for Scotland and Wales.

General information on: why radioactive waste is hazardous and has to be well managed; radiation and its potential health effects - pathways, how exposure is measured, the meaning of the "critical group", natural background levels; ICRP principles of radiation protection; the nature of risk and what is regarded as tolerable; the relationship between dose and risk; legal and other dose control limits.

Data on dose to critical group: operator, environment agency and FSA assessments - presented side by side (and reasons they are separately needed); critical group dose from each major pathway; dose for main and grouped radionuclides; specific data on radionuclides of high toxicity; contribution from direct radiation (if relevant).

Regulatory views

This should include:

The enquiries made to the applicant - rounds of "Questions & Answers" (fully referenced).

A section on regulation of the plant - need to deal with legacy wastes, conditioning and implications for discharges; worker dose.

Regulatory views on each element of the BPEO process and the decision in each case.

Whether BPM is satisfied; any additional decisions to be attached.

The significance of "reasonable needs of the operator"; flexibility, e.g., for outage; the need for headroom between actual discharges and limits.

Explanations of collective dose; historic dose; dose from future discharges; direct radiation; total dose from site against public dose limits.

Cost and proportionality in relation to the regulatory approach - cost per microsievert saved; use of user-friendly comparators against other areas, e.g., medical exposures.

A statement on the adequacy of protection of human health and the environment.

Proposals

These should cover:

The benefits of an integrated certificate.

The date of next cyclical review.

The status of the present proposals - draft, "minded to grant", etc.

The draft certificate of authorisation.

Disaggregated limits for - different practices on the site; current operations and plant decommissioning, dealing with difficult wastes, etc.

Areas where variations could be granted quickly and flexibly, e.g., to aid dealing with the site's historic waste legacy.

Whether any other declared regulatory principles have been used and, if so, how they have been applied to the process of formulation of the regulators' proposals.