LLW disposal to landfill – recent Environment Agency

experiences

David Bennett & Juliet Long

Radioactive Substances Regulation

July 2011

Structure

Our ambitions

Recent developments

Permitting landfill disposal of LLW

Experiences of working together

Our Ambitions

Proper protection of people and the environment

Progress in dealing with the nuclear legacyReducing risk to this generation and the burden on future generations

Help inform and enable progress, provided people and environment protected

People have confidence in our decision making

Outcomes?

Radiation doses that are as low as reasonably achievable

Fit-for-purpose regulatory framework robust, transparent, participative and integrated decision-making based on evidence

consistent with national policy

Environmental hazard and risk stabilised and reduced

Disposal sites –applications for permits for disposal to landfill

Consistent with national policy

Supported by ‘environmental safety case’

Consigning sites - inter-site transfers of LLW

Approach under Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 (EPR): - no need for statutory notification of local authoritiesOperators need to let the local authority know the origin and nature of the waste before receiving the first shipment from a consignorThe permit will

specify each permitted combination of waste and disposal routepermit transfer to either named sites or ‘the holder of a permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations to receive and dispose of HV-VLLW’

Schedule 3 – Specified transfers to other premises

Specific waste type Metallic LLW

Person to whom waste may be transferredThe holder of a permit under the EPR to receive and dispose of LLW at ..

Purpose of transferFor subsequent treatment and / or transfer for disposal

Radionuclide / group of radionuclidesAny

Calendar year limitNo limit

Annual volume limitNo limit

Inter-site transfers

No barriers to waste treatment / disposal BUT not unrestricted:Operators must still consider the options for disposal before generating wasteDisposal must still represent BAT and relevant Government policy e.g. proximity principle

We may decide to identify specified sites as necessary e.g. to deliver the requirements of the proximity principle or the waste hierarchy, but would not normally expect to do so

Records of waste transfer must be kept by consignor and receiving site operator

Public acceptability and decision making

Stated as an aim in both National LLW policy and strategy

We don’t place requirements on this:At receiving site – we would consider content of concern, rather than forming judgements on degree of concern (i.e. voting)

At consigning site – EPR approach of not requiring specific routes to be permitted renders Policy approach out of date

Some ambiguities in Policy and Strategy wording

Kings Cliffe inspector recognised it as a difficult area

Integrated Waste Management

Integrated waste strategies are important - considerable progress across NDA and other sites

NDA, regulators and MoD working together to take an overview of Integrated Waste Management strategy development and implementation

inc. revision to IWS specification

Continued support to LLW Management Programme through Programme Delivery Group

LLWR ESC review2002 Cases ‘inadequate’Disposal to Vault 8 onlyVault 9 built (storage only)Authorisation required updated ESC by May 2011Technical basis for future permitting decisionNeed for certainty - Industry need – status quo unacceptableLLWR > £8m, Our review > 5 person years

Key objective: Reach a clear and justified regulatory decision on future operations at the LLWR, underpinned by a robust technical reviewBe proportionate and timely

Good communications with Cumbria CC on EPR permitting – Planning interface

Outline timescales

May ‘11 - ESC submitted

May ’11 – July ’11 - Initial review

Aug ’11 – Apr ’12 - Core technical review / audits

May ’12 – Apr ‘13 - Prepare conclusions & publish

Mid to late ’12 - Application for further disposal

- Consult application (3 months)

- Draft decision / permit

- Consult draft decision (3 months)

Early autumn ’13 - Decision

Tech

nical

Review

Perm

it Review

Landfill disposal of LLW

Kings

Cliffe

Clifton Marsh

Lillyhall

Keekle Head

WRG Lillyhall landfill HV-VLLW applicationNon-hazardous, household and asbestos waste site

Application under RSA93 received May 2009

Existing planning permission until 2014

For HV-VLLW up to 26,000m3/yr, 582,000m3 total

Single consultation on application

Objections on grounds of proximity and socio-economic impacts

Article 37 decision received March 2011

EPR permit granted April 2011Local Authorities maintaining objections Planning permission renewal required by 2014

Kings Cliffe ControlledBurial application

Hazardous waste landfillApplication for 200Bq/g under RSA93 July 2009, < 250,000m3/yrSupported by a detailed radiological assessmentFollowing our review of this we reduced limits requested by Augean by factor of 18Two consultations (application & “minded to”)Vigorous objection on broad grounds – need, safety and socio-economic impacts, process, perceptionArticle 37 decision received in January 2011EPR Permit granted May 2011 along with planning permission - SoS decision

Clifton Marsh ControlledBurial application

Currently permitted to receive waste from Springfields / CapenhurstNon-hazardous and asbestos landfillApplication for < 1000Bq/g under RSA93 Nov 2009< 250,000m3 by 2020Article 37 decision received March 2011Planning permission until 2015Single consultation on application and draft permit started 2 June 2011

Keekle Head proposals

Dedicated facility in disused coal quarry workings

1 million m3 / up to 500Bq/g (mostly short lived) / 50-60 yrs

A ‘dry site’, covered during operations

Planning application submitted 2010

Proposals inconsistent with Cumbria County Council’s policies

Local opposition including pressure groups

We have been flagging concerns to CCC as part of their planning consultation e.g. groundwater impacts and River Keekle restoration

Experiences of Engagement with Local Authorities

Review across nuclear regulation group suggest a ‘variable’ experience:

Primarily via consultation during permitting• Correspondence & direct briefings (eg Preston CC

Environment committee)Site Stakeholder Groups & planning for emergency exercisesRoutine & ad-hoc in places eg. Cumbria, Allerdale Nuclear issues GroupLong term & regular engagement via the Cumbria MRWS Partnership

Is there more we can do?

OpportunitiesAccompanied site visits, attendance at annual reviews?

Bespoke workshops? “tumbleweed moment”

Better understanding of contacts & role?“I am not sufficiently aware of their role and the scope of their activities”

“Useful to be able to pick up the phone easily”

“The benefit [with the Partnership] has been the long process and lengthy engagement”

“Are there any LA ‘trade mags’ or newsletters”

Summary

Considerable changes have taken place, and will continue to happen

Policy and strategy development & implementationWays of working within industryOur regulatory approach under EPRSupply chain – new participants offering disposal routes

Variable experience in our ways of working with Local AuthoritiesKeen to explore ways of improving and understanding each others’ roles, expectations, and ways of working together