Clean-up of former nuclear sitesand the role of the Planning regime

Jim Cochrane

Aim of Talk

• To introduce DECC-led work to look at better regulation of nuclear sites – nothing is “broken”, but there is an opportunity for better regulation

• Also, to explain on-going work by the environment agencies to regulate nuclear site clean-up and return the site to a “reference state”

• The “reference state” must meet the Agencies’ qualitative and quantitative requirements for clean-up (analogous to “satisfactory state” under PPC)

• Agencies’ work recognises the need for flexibility in clean-up including consideration of on-site disposal of radwaste

• Want to understand (i) what controls are available under T&CPA and (ii) what “handshakes are needed between planning authorities and the Agencies – 10 questions

Regulation of Nuclear Sites – a very brief overview

• Conventional and nuclear safety on nuclear sites is regulated by the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR)

• Main nuclear safety legislation is the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 – “goal-setting” regulation covering the construction, commissioning, operation, decommissioning & final site clearance

• SEPA, EA and NRW regulation focuses on protection of human health and the environment

• RS Legislation is different across the UK:

• England and Wales (Environmental Protection Regulations, 2010)

• Scotland and NI (Radioactive Substances Act 1993)

Roles & Responsibilities of ONR and the Environment Agencies

• Simplified summary:

• ONR :- storage and handling of nuclear matter

• Agencies:- disposal of radioactive wastes

• Agencies are developing a process to surrender “permits” after nuclear sites have been cleaned-up using a risk based approach

• Agencies risk assessment approach is based on a set of principles and requirements (our “standard”)

• ONR have a separate risk-based approach to delicensing

• Sites should be cleaned-up such that regulation under Part IIA is not required after surrender of the RS “permit”

Focus of Talk – Site Clean-up

• Want to focus on the “back end” of site clean-up where both ONR & the Agencies have regulatory responsibilities for the site

• Agencies will only accept surrender of a “permit” when we are confident that the risks posed by any radwaste or residual contam remaining on the site meet our “standard” now & in the future

• Eventually, Planning regime takes on the responsibility for use of former nuclear site

• DECC are leading on work to look at the transitions between safety, environmental and planning regulatory regimes

• For the transition from environmental to planning regimes, work will consider the scope for applying land use planning controls during any period of restricted use of the site

Proportionate Regulation of Nuclear Site Clean-up?

6

Nuclear Installations Act 1965

Environmental Permitting Regulations, Radioactive Substances Act

Lev

els

of

Reg

ula

tory

Co

ntr

ol

Enduring Controls e.g. Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Ionising Radiation Regulations 1999

Nuclear Installations Act 1965

Environmental Permitting Regulations, Radioactive Substances Act

Lev

els

of

Reg

ula

tory

Co

ntr

ol

Enduring Controls e.g. Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Ionising Radiation Regulations 1999

Aim of DECC-led Work

• Regulatory controls are maintained but are more targeted and give:

• Greater clarity on the roles of regulators

• Effective management of interfaces (handshakes) that allow transitions between regulatory regimes

• ”stepped” regulation aims to be more flexible and proportionate

• Learn lessons from UK non-nuclear sites – in particular the transition from environmental regulation to planning

• Want to understand:

• Can the current Planning regime take on any regulatory responsibilities for nuclear sites from the Agencies?

Agencies’ Guidance Development

• Established a set of principles & requirements (“standard”) for surrender of a permit

• Agencies currently developing our guidance on the regulatory process to achieve eventual surrender of a RS “permit”

• Our “standard” is based on eventual unrestricted use of a site.

• However, restricted site use is allowed, but only while there are appropriate institutional controls (see previous figure)

• Our guidance is flexible to allow for another organisation to regulate the site for the period where a nuclear site has a restricted use

Site clean-up

• Agencies guidance based on international system of radiological protection

• Agencies looking for optimum solution for the end state of a site recognising “trade offs” between for example:• impacts on people/environment for waste managed

either on vs off-site?• benefit of removal of contamination vs generation of

radioactive waste and worker dose?• cost of waste disposal off-site vs land value?

• Our regulatory “flexibility” accepts that the Harwell end state could be very different to Sellafield and Dounreay

• What institutional controls could the T&CPA provide?

On-site Disposal – a Key “Trade-off”• Some nuclear sites may decide to leave more radwaste

and contamination than others.

• Agencies regulate the disposal of radioactive waste including:

• Buried infrastructure that is radioactive waste (pipe work, below-ground structures etc)

• Radioactive waste for void filling (useful purpose: reduces other environmental impacts)

• Recognise that on-site disposal of radioactive waste will have implications for:

• Planning

• Local stakeholder groups

Which of the following disposals would need planning approval

Period of restricted use

• Once the Agencies surrender the site RS “permit”, the site can be used for other purposes if “appropriate” institutional controls are put in place

• Could the T&CPA provide appropriate institutional controls for the restricted use period?

• Are there other institutional control regimes that might also have a role during the restricted use period? – e.g. Land Registry?

• What would the handshake between Agencies and another body need to address?

• Site knowledge & records?

• Financial provision?

Handshake between Agencies and Planning

• Want to make sure our regulatory process

takes account of the land use planning regime, so….

• We have produced a short paper and asked the following 10 questions - hopefully, we’ve answered question 4 – about on-site disposal.

Question 1

Do Planning Authorities’ local strategies and plans acknowledge the potential for residual radioactive contamination remaining on nuclear sites and the possibility of on-site disposals of radioactive waste? 

Question 2

Is formal planning permission necessary for on-site disposal of radioactive waste on nuclear sites; particularly in cases where the radioactive waste is disposed either to fill voids on the site or to landscape the site (i.e. on-site disposal serves a useful purpose)?

Question 3

Where ‘permitted development’ has been granted, to what extent can radioactive waste be disposed of on-site. For example, would void filling or landscaping using radioactive waste be allowed under ‘permitted development’?

Question 4

In what situations would specific planning permission for the disposal of radioactive waste be required?

Question 5

What are the potential barriers to planning permission being granted for on-site disposals of radwaste?

Question 6

How could any barriers to obtaining planning permission be overcome?

Question 7

Do you think the T&CPA could provide appropriate institutional control to protect people and the environment if the Environment Agencies surrendered the RS permit during the period of restricted use?

Question 8

What arrangements do you think are needed for the “handshake” between the Environment Agencies and the Planning Authority when handing on regulatory responsibilities eg site records, site knowledge etc?

Question 9

Do Planning Authorities think former nuclear sites require specific planning conditions simply by virtue of their previous use after the site “reference state” has been reached?

Question 10

If yes to question 9

What planning conditions do Planning Authorities think are needed at a former nuclear site after the site “reference state” is achieved?

Next Steps

• Write up (non-attributable) responses – send to attendees asking for comment?

• Collate responses into a “technical” paper – send for comment?

My thanks for “getting to the end”