LLW disposal to landfill – recent Environment Agency experiences

1. LLW disposal to landfill – recent Environment Agency experiences David Bennett & Juliet Long Radioactive Substances Regulation July 2011

2. Structure • Our ambitions • Recent developments • Permitting landfill disposal of LLW • Experiences of working together

3. Our Ambitions • Proper protection of people and the environment • Progress in dealing with the nuclear legacy • Reducing 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

4. 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

5. Disposal sites –applications for permits for disposal to landfill • Consistent with national policy • Supported by ‘environmental safety case’

6. Consigning sites - inter-site transfers of LLW • Approach under Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 (EPR): - no need for statutory notification of local authorities • Operators need to let the local authority know the origin and nature of the waste before receiving the first shipment from a consignor • The permit will • specify each permitted combination of waste and disposal route • permit transfer to either named sites or ‘the holder of a permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations to receive and dispose of HV-VLLW’

7. Schedule 3 – Specified transfers to other premises • Specific waste type • Metallic LLW • Person to whom waste may be transferred • The holder of a permit under the EPR to receive and dispose of LLW at .. • Purpose of transfer • For subsequent treatment and / or transfer for disposal • Radionuclide / group of radionuclides • Any • Calendar year limit • No limit • Annual volume limit • No limit

8. Inter-site transfers • No barriers to waste treatment / disposal BUT not unrestricted: • Operators must still consider the options for disposal before generating waste • Disposal 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. LLWR ESC review • 2002 Cases ‘inadequate’ • Disposal to Vault 8 only • Vault 9 built (storage only) • Authorisation required updated ESC by May 2011 • Technical basis for future permitting decision • Need for certainty - Industry need – status quo unacceptable • LLWR > £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 review • Be proportionate and timely • Good communications with Cumbria CC on EPR permitting – Planning interface

12. 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 Technical Review Permit Review

13. Landfill disposal of LLW Kings Cliffe Lillyhall Clifton Marsh Keekle Head

14. WRG Lillyhall landfill HV-VLLW application • Non-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 2011 • Local Authorities maintaining objections • Planning permission renewal required by 2014

15. Kings Cliffe ControlledBurial application • Hazardous waste landfill • Application for 200Bq/g under RSA93 July 2009, < 250,000m3/yr • Supported by a detailed radiological assessment • Following our review of this we reduced limits requested by Augean by factor of 18 • Two consultations (application & “minded to”) • Vigorous objection on broad grounds – need, safety and socio-economic impacts, process, perception • Article 37 decision received in January 2011 • EPR Permit granted May 2011 along with planning permission - SoS decision

16. Clifton Marsh ControlledBurial application • Currently permitted to receive waste from Springfields / Capenhurst • Non-hazardous and asbestos landfill • Application for < 1000Bq/g under RSA93 Nov 2009 • < 250,000m3 by 2020 • Article 37 decision received March 2011 • Planning permission until 2015 • Single consultation on application and draft permit started 2 June 2011

17. 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

18. 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 exercises • Routine & ad-hoc in places eg. Cumbria, Allerdale Nuclear issues Group • Long term & regular engagement via the Cumbria MRWS Partnership

19. Is there more we can do? • Opportunities • Accompanied 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”

21. Summary • Considerable changes have taken place, and will continue to happen • Policy and strategy development & implementation • Ways of working within industry • Our regulatory approach under EPR • Supply chain – new participants offering disposal routes • Variable experience in our ways of working with Local Authorities • Keen to explore ways of improving and understanding each others’ roles, expectations, and ways of working together