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

10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

10.1 This chapter summarises the conclusions and recommendations that RWMAC/NuSAC have reached as a result of this study of the conditioning, packaging and storage of ILW.

Need for review and development of policy

10.2 RWMAC/NuSAC share the concerns that have been expressed to them during the course of this study about the currency and sufficiency of policy set out in the 1995 White Paper, Cm 2919. The Committees consider that Cm 2919's uncertain status - where some parts may be extant and some superseded - is both unhelpful and unsatisfactory. In particular, there is a need for a clear and updated statement of Government policy for the interim management of ILW. The need for policy clarity is further underlined by the Government's decision to set up the LMA.

10.3 Against this background, RWMAC/NuSAC are concerned that national policy regarding the conditioning, packaging and storage of ILW is effectively being set by default - and in a potentially fragmented fashion - by the waste producers, the regulators and Nirex. While the views of such bodies are clearly important, national policy must be decided and clearly stated by Government.

10.4 Government policy on the management of radioactive wastes must cover all time periods. The Government MRWS consultation paper ⁵ focuses primarily on the processes that might be used to formulate policy on the long-term management of solid radioactive wastes. Although some statements on shorter-term issues are contained in MRWS, it does not encompass the full range of issues that must be addressed in developing policy on the conditioning, packaging and storage of ILW.

10.5 NuSAC/RWMAC acknowledge that a full statement of radioactive waste management policy will not be possible until the programme of policy formulation and consultation arising from MRWS is complete. The Committees recommend, however, that the Government clarify which parts of Cm 2929 remain extant and which do not. We also recommend that Government takes the earliest possible opportunity to develop and state its policy for the conditioning, packaging and storage of ILW.

The current state of ILW

10.6 As of April 1998 (the time of the most recent official figures), only a small proportion - 12 per cent - of existing ILW had been conditioned. Most of the remainder, which has arisen from nuclear industry operations over many decades, is stored in untreated form on nuclear sites.

10.7 There are various reasons for the current situation. Government policy prior to 1995 was that ILW should remain untreated for as long as it was safe to do so. This reflected a concern that treatment might foreclose disposal options. The policy also meant that expenditure on new ILW conditioning and storage facilities could be deferred. Although the 1995 White Paper, Cm 2919 ², relaxed the presumption against early treatment in circumstances where safety or economic benefits could be achieved, it did not provide a major impetus for conditioning programmes.

10.8 But circumstances have changed. The collapse of the Nirex ILW underground repository programme in 1997 dramatically lengthened the times over which interim storage of ILW could be anticipated. This reinforced the concerns of NII about the storage conditions of some ILW, and led to increasing emphasis on the need for potentially mobile wastes to be conditioned.

10.9 Particular concern has focused on "historic" wastes. These may be poorly characterised, physically and chemically degraded, and held in old facilities subject to deterioration. Considerable effort is often needed to find suitable means of retrieving, conditioning and storing these wastes. Attention has also been drawn to other "challenging" wastes, including material where effective immobilisation is difficult, and materials with inherent hazards (such as reactive metals and high fissile content).

10.10 Against this background, RWMAC/NuSAC consider that it is now unsatisfactory that only such a small proportion of ILW has been treated and conditioned. The Committees therefore recommend that all waste producers should have clearly articulated strategies and plans for the conditioning, packaging and storage of ILW. Clear targets and objectives should be set for carrying such work forward, against which progress can be monitored and openly reported. Waste producers must also, in conjunction with Nirex and the regulators, devote adequate resources into programmes for dealing with challenging ILW, with particular emphasis on historic wastes.

Towards passively safe storage

10.11 RWMAC/NuSAC support the view that, so far as is reasonably practicable, ILW should be stored according to the principles of passive safety set out in NII guidance to its inspectors ¹⁰. The NII principles describe the attributes of passive safety, including that the radioactivity be immobile and the waste form and container be chemically and physically stable, so that the need for safety systems, maintenance, monitoring and human intervention is minimised. The Committees commend the NII's principles, and concur with the regulator's view that licensees should aim to apply them within a framework of reasonable practicability and cost-effectiveness. RWMAC/NuSAC also wish to highlight that passive safety cannot be regarded as an absolute, in the sense that judgement will always be required in implementation of the NII's "passivity" principles.

10.12 As ILW conditioning and packaging programmes are developed, there are likely to be tensions around passive safe storage and interpretations of reasonable practicability and cost-effectiveness. Within the framework established by the NII guidance, RWMAC/NuSAC consider it legitimate for NII to scrutinise and, where appropriate, robustly challenge waste producers' proposals, as long as conclusions are reached on the basis of transparent, consistent, case by case judgements that take proper account of all relevant factors.

10.13 Given the extended periods of storage now likely, and regulatory concerns about the storage conditions of some ILW waste streams, RWMAC/NuSAC support the NII emphasis on the implementation of programmes to achieve passively safe storage as soon as reasonably practicable. This is as long as due recognition is given to the "disposability" of conditioned waste forms. RWMAC/NuSAC also expect proper regard to be paid to the safety-related factors that should influence the timing of specific conditioning programmes.

10.14 RWMAC/NuSAC also see a need for Government to clarify its expectation of the timescales for interim storage. This would encourage a greater focus on the standards required for the provision of packages and stores, and help inform local development control and planning decisions. The main waste producers, the regulators and Nirex all now broadly accept that it would be prudent to plan for a period of interim storage of the order 100 to 150 years.

10.15 In light of these conclusions, RWMAC/NuSAC recommend that Government policy on passively safe storage should be clarified. The Committees consider that Government policy should endorse the view that, so far as is reasonably practicable, ILW should be stored accordingly to the principles of passive safety, as set out in NII guidance to its inspectors ¹⁰; and, assert a presumption in favour of conditioning as soon as is reasonably practicable, provided due account is taken of the safety of existing storage arrangements and the "disposability" of the conditioned waste form. RWMAC/NuSAC also recommend that Government states its expectation of prudent lifetime objectives for the packaging and interim storage of ILW so as to guide future management decisions by the waste producers and the proposed LMA.

Disposability and the Nirex Letter of Comfort system

10.16 RWMAC/NuSAC consider there is an important continuing need for a system that seeks to ensure the disposability of conditioned waste forms, so that disposal options are not foreclosed for future generations. Disposability in this context is defined as the likelihood that a package of conditioned ILW will be acceptable for disposal in a purpose-designed facility. The continuing need for such a system has been brought into sharp focus by NII's emphasis on the early conditioning of ILW to help achieve its passively safe storage.

10.17 The current means of seeking to ensure the disposability of waste forms rests primarily with Nirex and its Letter of Comfort system. This system entails the provision of packaging advice, based on standards and performance specifications developed by the company, and linked to its Phased Disposal Concept. ¹³ Although the future of Nirex is uncertain, the importance of the LoC system and associated expertise, should not be underestimated. RWMAC/NuSAC recommend that Government policy should endorse the role that Nirex expertise, standards and advice play in safeguarding the disposability of conditioned waste forms.

10.18 The early and sustained involvement of Nirex (or successor organisation) is important both for the timely provision of packaging advice and enabling long-term requirements to be properly considered. RWMAC/NuSAC consider that this could be achieved by formally stating that such involvement is a requirement of Government policy. This approach would avoid the need for legislation to provide Nirex with the status of statutory consultee, which the company suggested during the course of this study. Legislative change would entail various difficulties given the present ownership of Nirex and uncertainty about the company's future.

10.19 RWMAC/NuSAC recommend that Government policy should emphasise the importance of operating the LoC system to well-founded programmes, with a clear commitment to early discussions between key stakeholders. It should also highlight the need for the early and sustained involvement of Nirex (or successor organisation) in discussions about proposals for specific conditioning programmes.

10.20 That said, with current uncertainty over policy for long-term ILW management, it is important to assess the robustness of Nirex packaging advice to a range of long-term management options. Nirex is currently undertaking such an assessment. RWMAC/NuSAC consider it important that the company publish full details, so that claims for the wider applicability of its advice and the implications for long-term policy can be reviewed. The Committees recommend that this be done at the earliest opportunity.

10.21 If the current Government MRWS-led policy review does not result in the adoption of a policy of deep underground disposal, the linkage between the LoC system and Nirex's Phased Disposal Concept will become increasingly questionable. In such circumstances, RWMAC/NuSAC recommend that the form, institutional location and presentation of the LoC system be made subject to fundamental review. The purpose would be to develop an appropriate system for safeguarding the necessary disposability of waste forms, so that disposal options are not foreclosed for future generations. There will also be a need to ensure that the expertise currently available within Nirex is not lost.

10.22 RWMAC/NuSAC also recognise that the disposability of waste forms is central to the environment agencies' responsibilities and, consequently, that there is a case for enabling the agencies to provide additional "regulatory assurance" that this will usually be achieved. However, the Committees do not favour the EA suggestion of a new statutory power over the storage of radioactive wastes on licensed nuclear sites because of the difficulties that are likely to arise from dual regulation. An alternative approach might be to make each of the three stages of LoC subject to endorsement by the appropriate environment agency. This could be stated as an expectation of policy, and be achieved by formal administrative agreement between NII and the appropriate agency. Another approach might be to develop a new statutory role for the agencies based on the issue by them of a "certificate of disposability".

10.23 RWMAC/NuSAC therefore recommend that the EA proposal for a new statutory power over the storage of radioactive wastes on licensed nuclear sites should not be adopted. However, alternative means of enabling the environment agencies to provide additional "regulatory assurance" of the disposability of waste forms should be subject to early appraisal by Government. Whatever approach is adopted to achieve this, policy should recognise the potential need for interim packaging arrangements, and for means of dispute resolution.

Interim packaging arrangements

10.24 BNFL's proposed "Interim Safe Storage" (ISS) strategy for the Sellafield site is a significant development in the field of ILW management, and requires careful consideration by national and local stakeholders. In view of safety concerns about the storage of historic wastes on the Sellafield site, RWMAC/NuSAC acknowledge that in certain circumstances it may be necessary to adopt interim packaging arrangements for specific waste streams. In this context, an interim package means that packaged waste has not secured a LoC. However, the Committees also consider that such interim arrangements require convincing and transparent case-by-case justification asto why the waste cannot be packaged to LoC standards. In addition, where such interim packaging arrangements can be justified, RWMAC/NuSAC strongly favour approaches which facilitate final treatment at a later date, rather than requiring complete re-working to meet future needs.

10.25 In light of this, RWMAC/NuSAC recommend that Government policy should acknowledge the potential need for interim packaging. However, policy should state clearly the expectation that such an approach would only be adopted in openly declared and fully justified cases, and with the agreement of NII and the appropriate environment agency.

Regulation of radioactive discharges

10.26 RWMAC/NuSAC are concerned that the disagreement between BNFL and EA about the implications for the treatment of historic wastes arising from proposals for the regulation of Sellafield discharges remains unresolved. This is an important issue because the investigation, characterisation and retrieval of historic ILW could in principle give rise to unexpected discharges beyond those which would be allowed in the discharge authorisation proposed by EA.

10.27 Government itself must be clear of the implications of proposals for the regulation of Sellafield discharges for the treatment of the large amounts of historic ILW held on the site. RWMAC/NuSAC recommend that these implications be reviewed in conjunction with BNFL and the regulators, so that the matter can be resolved in an appropriate way prior to finalisation of the UK Discharge Strategy and Statutory Guidance to the environment agencies ^8,9.

Tensions at the regulatory interface

10.28 There have been regulatory tensions between NII and the environment agencies that can impact on plans for the conditioning, packaging and storage of ILW. Against this background, RWMAC/NuSAC welcome the strenuous efforts that the regulators are currently making to overcome such difficulties. The Committees recommend that the extent to which these initiatives deliver improvements should be carefully monitored and assessed by the regulators in conjunction with other key stakeholders to ensure their effectiveness. Such monitoring and assessment needs to be ongoing, and the outcome acted upon as appropriate.

The LMA and management of ILW

10.29 The proposed LMA will play an important role in the management of ILW, and must be able to function effectively and efficiently. For this to happen, the LMA's remit 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. The Committees' recommendations, as stated in this report, therefore seek to ensure the availability of clear policy for the interim management of the UK's ILW.

10.30 The notion of "common purpose", based on commonality of interests in wanting to see liabilities discharged safely and effectively, 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. We welcome statements from the regulators, which provide an indication of their commitment to making a "common purpose" approach work in practice. RWMAC/NuSAC recommend that Government policy should encourage a "common purpose" approach as described above.

10.31 RWMAC/NuSAC are aware of a range of disagreements and disputes that arise in relation to the management of ILW. 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. The Committees therefore recommend that the waste producers, regulators and Nirex takes steps to ensure the availability of channels for resolving disputes that have potential to delay the conditioning and packaging of ILW.

10.32 RWMAC/NuSAC welcome attempts to develop hazard reduction or safety 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 to be a key objective of such initiatives. RWMAC/NuSAC therefore recommend that proposals for such indexes should be exposed to wide-ranging peer review and stakeholder comment prior to any 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.