Current Arrangements and Requirements for the Conditioning, Packaging and Storage of Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste: Joint RWMAC/NuSAC Report

9. THE LMA AND THE MANAGEMENT OF ILW

9.1 This chapter introduces some of the key issues raised by the Government's intention to set up the LMA ¹ (see chapter 4), and draws some preliminary conclusions. In doing so, it considers: the need for a clear policy context; the notion of a "common purpose" approach; and the role of "Hazard Reduction/Safety Indexes".

Key issues raised for Government by the LMA proposal

9.2 The Government's intention is that the LMA will be responsible for developing an overall strategy for the management of BNFL and UKAEA liabilities, including ILW. This will be a challenging task, as indicated by the estimated total value of the liabilities at over £40 billion. On transfer of these liabilities, the LMA will become the main owner of ILW in the UK, with holdings of over 90 per cent of the 1998 Inventory and almost 75 per cent of projected future arisings (figures derived from Table 1 in chapter 3).

9.3 It is of great importance that the LMA is able to function effectively and efficiently. For this to happen, the remit of the LMA must be spelt out so that there is clarity concerning its responsibilities and accountabilities, to set alongside those of existing organisations. Ideally, the LMA's remit should be based on a comprehensive statement of Government radioactive waste management policy. RWMAC/NuSAC are concerned that this will not be possible because of various policy deficits, including for the long-term management of ILW. In these circumstances, RWMAC/NuSAC stress the importance of prompt clarification of policy for the interim management of ILW. This policy should address passively safe storage, the disposability of conditioned ILW, the role of interim packaging arrangements, and the regulation of radioactive discharges.

9.4 There will also be other requirements for the effective and efficient working of the LMA. Key among them is funding arrangements. These should enable major radioactive waste treatment projects to be planned and progressed over many years without the need for continual reference back to Government. The arrangements should not promote delay of projects e.g., through inappropriate discounting. Government is sensitive to this issue and has suggested the possibility of segregated funding ¹⁹, but the precise form that these arrangements might take is still unclear. Equally, commercial incentivisation of the LMA to carry through its work programmes must be appropriately balanced, through the role of the regulatory bodies, with appropriate safety and environment protection requirements.

A "common purpose" approach

9.5 Although the organisational framework of the LMA is still under development, it will undoubtedly introduce a whole new range of inter-organisational boundaries. As this report has highlighted, these boundaries are often the source of problems and require careful management. DTI has already drawn attention to the importance of establishing effective working relationships between the LMA and the regulators. Indeed, it has referred to the scope for exchanges between the regulators and the LMA on strategy and "the opportunity to create a new sense of common purpose in the safe, efficient and cost effective discharge of liabilities" ¹⁹. DTI's notion of "common purpose" is based on a perceived commonality of interest between liabilities managers and regulators in wanting to see liabilities discharged safely and effectively. It believes that the LMA must build on this commonality of interest.

9.6 RWMAC/NuSAC consider that the notion of "common purpose" fits well with the conclusions in this report about the need for early involvement of key stakeholders in the formulation of strategic plans and programmes for the management of ILW.

9.7 The Joint RWMAC/NuSAC Working Group also sought the views of the regulators on the scope for "common purpose". They responded as follows:

"HSE is supportive of developing a sense of "common purpose" ... The aim is to exchange information and identify issues and constraints that need to be considered by the licensee in developing its programmes and plans. At the appropriate stage the formal regulatory process will be followed as normal. We do not see any difficulty with this approach as long as all parties understand the context of the early discussions and that they will not prejudice the eventual regulatory outcome." (NII)

"We wholeheartedly agree that there should be a "common purpose" and would encourage this approach. We feel that there is an underlying issue of ensuring effective communications, and that this is an area where operators should be taking the initiative and engaging with regulators from an early stage in a tripartite manner. We do not feel that this need compromise our ability to provide regulatory challenge." (EA)

9.8 RWMAC/NuSAC welcome these statements as an indication of regulator commitment to making a "common purpose" approach work in practice. It might also be anticipated that such an approach could be embraced by other key stakeholders, including Nirex and the local planning authorities.

9.9 Nevertheless, RWMAC/NuSAC are aware of a range of disagreements and disputes that can arise in relation to the management of ILW, some of which have been outlined in this report. It is our expectation that many such difficulties could be more easily resolved if the key stakeholders were operating within a clear and sufficient policy context, whilst embracing a "common purpose" approach. Nonetheless, we consider that there may still be a requirement for clearly defined channels, presumably at senior management levels, for resolving disputes. These channels should aim to eliminate the kinds of unacceptable delay to some ILW treatment programmes that have been experienced in the past.

"Hazard reduction/safety indexes"

9.10 When announcing the Government's intention to set up the LMA, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry stated that she saw the LMA as "providing the driving force and incentives to get on with the job of systematically and progressively reducing the hazard posed by legacy facilities and wastes" ¹. DTI has also suggested that hazard reduction could form the basis of a key performance indicator to help measure the performance of the LMA ¹⁹.

9.11 The emphasis on hazard reduction corresponds to NII's approach to the assessment of progress with decommissioning programmes. This is based on progressive and systematic reduction of hazard, where hazard is an intrinsic ability to cause harm. The basis for a focus on hazard - as opposed to risk - is that, in an operating plant, risk can be balanced against the benefits from operation, whereas redundant facilities have no clear benefit against which to balance the risk. Risk in this context is the probability that harm of a specific type and magnitude will occur.

9.12 RWMAC/NuSAC were informed that BNFL and UKAEA have started developing hazard reduction or safety indexes, which could be useful as one of a range of key future performance indicators. Both organisations provided the study with interim papers setting out work in progress on this issue.

9.13 BNFL's thinking is that a "safety index" should be a measure of the "capability to cause harm", which includes the intrinsic hazard of the material, how easily it is spread about (including the form of the material and its physical and chemical stability), and the number and robustness of the barriers which prevent it being spread about. The company sees the index's primary use as being to show progress over time, although it could also provide one of a range of inputs to decision making about priorities and strategies for waste management. It also considers that the index must be easy to explain and maintain, have "sign on" from industry, regulators and DTI, and be auditable.

9.14 The UKAEA highlighted that the primary use of a "hazard reduction index" should be to demonstrate the reduction of hazard as a tangible output of decommissioning and waste management strategies and plans. UKAEA is working up an index based on "the well understood integrated measure of hazard potential used in UKAEA's categorisation of activities on our sites". This method considers source terms and relative mobility of the hazard.

9.15 RWMAC/NuSAC welcome attempts to develop hazard reduction indexes, which primarily seek to provide an easily understandable means of assessing and demonstrating progress towards the achievement of passive safe storage. Provision of clear information to the public concerning such progress should be seen as a key objective. The Committees therefore recommend that proposals for such indexes should be exposed to wide-ranging peer review and stakeholder comment prior to formal adoption and use. Such steps are essential if the indexes are to secure "sign on" from Government, the regulators and other key stakeholders, such as the local authorities in the areas containing major BNFL and UKAEA sites.