1 / 20

Radioactive Waste Issues in Planning - A local authority perspective

Radioactive Waste Issues in Planning - A local authority perspective. Rob Murfin Planning Officers Society Head of Planning Services Derbyshire County Council. The starting point – NPPF Bottom up issues. Focus on sustainable development & growth What are the implications?

sheila
Download Presentation

Radioactive Waste Issues in Planning - A local authority perspective

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Radioactive Waste Issues in Planning - A local authority perspective Rob Murfin Planning Officers Society Head of Planning Services Derbyshire County Council

  2. The starting point – NPPFBottom up issues • Focus on sustainable development & growth What are the implications? • Emphasis on local decision-making? • Reduced national guidance ? • Not control, but facilitation of development • Genuinely plan-led • Shift to opportunities, not barriers

  3. NPPF – a year on • Implications of shift from arguments around impacts to that of benefits • Equalising 3 legs of sustainable development • Taken industry time to adopt to reemphasis • More generic economic benefits now need to be expanded and put into society and sector based context.

  4. Economic benefits – a new approach • Argument “will undermine inward investment because of image” • Demise of RSS tier, decisions must be directlyconsistent with national policy. No interpretation via RSS need/apportionment • NPPF arguments more info about economics • Traditional counter “it will create 23 jobs”

  5. NPPF generic Use of Evidence Political confidence v crossing line to “advocate” • Description of Strategic Context, fit with national, strategic and sub-regional growth plans • Market Context of the proposal • Description of the Socio-economic Context • Examples of business sectors and elements of society to be “customers” and scale of demand • Attempt assessment of the quantifiable Economic Impact including direct, indirect and supplier chains • Challenge organisational objectors (including PC) to at least try to quantify alleged negative impact

  6. Radioactive wastes • Start from “Schools and Housing” argument • General waste disconnect • “OK, but not needed here” • VLLW – exposes the issues of NPPF approach

  7. DCLG Guidance on implementing the Waste Framework Directive (Dec 2012) New style guidance “expect WPAs to plan for the sustainable management of wastes including:” Municipal/household Commercial/industrial Construction/demolition Low Level Radioactive Agricultural waste Hazardous waste

  8. VLL radioactive specific “needs” • Wealth of information out there • Hard to distil from primary sources in day job* • Key texts for non-expert to get going *Micro-pig contextual framework scenario

  9. NPPF = Plan positively for low level radioactive waste???

  10. Housing acceptance* • Need to establish start part of role • Accept that there will still be resistance

  11. Spatial : often urban distribution… Hospitals250+ nuclear medicine centres, 670K procedures PA. Last 10 years increase of 40%. Estimated 77% of small VLL arisings Pharmaceutical IndustryEmploys c68k. 40% directly involved in research, 20% used radioactivity Contaminated land Legacy from activities pre-dating control of use/disposal. Processing of uranium ore during 1940/ 50s to extract radium for paint, dialsand watches Universities10,000 monitored workers Oil/Gas Industry“Overboard discharge”* and reinjection of material into the seabed subsurface of NORM

  12. Scale: Very Low Volumes of Very Low Level Waste • Most sites produce less than 50 m3pa • Most areas unlikely to exceed 0.1% of non-radioactive directive waste • Permit to use disposal routes under radioactive waste regs is held by waste producers, not operator of receiving disposal facility • Any landfill or incinerator may have been accepting low volume VLLW mixed in with the other wastes

  13. Features: waste • Majority of LLW similar physical & chemical nature to MSW or C&I waste streams • Radioactivity additional to present in raw materials - therefore is also in all types of waste • Because of low risks/ small quantities, disposal mostly been via facilities used for other wastes • Reported reduction in “availability” of facilities • Concern about continued availability of facilities or need to transport waste over long distances

  14. Key messages • Plan provision, inc. imports to ensure plan is consistent with national policy • Confirm opportunities for disposal will be assessed against positive policies, not just barriers • Abolition of RSS = embrace cross boundary working (DtC) • Definition itself gives rise to public concern= deterrent for operators to provide a disposal service. • May very well make a hard task even harder in some parts of country

  15. VLLW clarity needed even if it means plans and facilities “harder” to get through • Linked issues ; reduce the fragility of disposal arrangements and arrangements needed to provide security of supply of hydrocarbons • “it is appropriate that local communities should take greater responsibility for how they deal with non-nuclear industry arisings”

  16. All this does not mean every WPA has to have a LLW facility…

  17. .. But does not mean defaulting to disposal in Cumbria or Oosoom District Council* • No RSS, but “reality apportionment” evidence cannot be ignored • Government does not believe it is appropriate to require operators of commercial waste facilities to take particular wastes. • Support provision of sufficient opportunitieswithin local planning strategies to meet the non-nuclear industry disposal needs

  18. Challenge • Non-nuclear industry distributed across UK, although tends to be urban • Small volumes of LLW are largely insufficient to drive the provision of bespoke facilities or via allocation process. • Awareness of issue could be the problem? • WPAs should actively state conditions when LLW can go to given facilities • NPPF– look for solutions, not restrictions

More Related